next »

[xiotex]

Having just left Introversion and before I start my new job I decided to put a lot of time into my spare-time projects and I hope to be able to sell them one day. It occurred to me that one of my basic core beliefs is knowledge sharing - something I put into practice with the Darwinia+ site for Introversion. I learned from other coders teaching me and bits of code I found on the net so I want to continue that practice and put my source code up for all to see. However, I still need to eat which means making money somehow. So, is there a market for this kind of thing and if there is what kind of price would you pay to see the source code of a game you like?

[Cymon]

This is a really, really interesting question. Me, I release my source code with everything I do so far, but nothing I've done so far has been for my monetary benefit. I don't know how this would work.

Of course, my thought is to release the code with the game and just sell it that way. Sure folks could compile their own, but they could just pirate it if that was their intention. The other idea is to take a 2 or 5 year policy and release sourcecode after the game has had a chance to run it's course.

I really don't know the solution to this.

[Martin 2BAM]

I always liked Id's approach:
Make a cutting edge game, then after a while (when it's not cutting edge) release it's source under a GPL licence (No commercial derivatives can come out of that).

If your source is super cool, you could do the same... and if people get's interested in it and gains popularity, you could sell under an alternative licence (Specific for commercial use) for some $$$.

That way
1. You get the best of your coding for a while
2. Afterwards you share with the world your knowledge, that's cool
3. You could even make some cash later, if what you made is super cool and it gained popularity.


Rounding up:
I think you need to keep your source to yourself for a while.
Because you're also always evolving, you'd make a better work next time and the source from the previous game will mean less to you. Then even as you release it, you will probably make something better in the future.

Regards
-Martín

[bateleur]

I wouldn't pay to see a game's source, no.

The main reason is: most source code is horrible. Only if the writer has written something clean, readable and efficient will it be of any use to me and I won't know that until I've already seen it.

Main advantage of releasing source, besides helping the community, is free publicity for the game. I wouldn't recommend GPL. Instead, use a licence where commercial games can use the code but must credit you explicitly somewhere clearly visible. That way if your code is good you generate even more free publicity.

[lordmetroid]

GPL has nothing against you selling the software yourself. It just becomes more difficult to do so. Even Stalman himself insist you should try to sell GPL software.

[Snakey]

Mmm, you got to be really careful here. Just ensure that code isn't in any way owned by Introversion (such as code written off time during their employment, as some companies will state that they own every line of code you write ... on or off the clock).

Lastly, source code is much more useful when it is explained to the general masses. So, if your source code is of high quality and you feel that it would be useful for people, then you can use it as premium content for tutorials or something like that.

That could be one way to go.

[Martin 2BAM]

GPL has nothing against you selling the software yourself. It just becomes more difficult to do so. Even Stalman himself insist you should try to sell GPL software.

In that case you usually charge for the media (CD/DVD/Manual/Box/Shipping) instead of the software itself.

GPL forces all derivative works to be GPL: open source and free (you must be able to get the software for free)
Also, stating that you modified it... usually makes a reference to the original author.

So, a commercial product wont want to be open source right away  .
But for the general learning, not-for-the-money public... it's more than OK.
If you really want to use the code, then you could pay for a different licence (I imagine a whole package, not snippets)

Excerpt from GPL:

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    * a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
    * b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
    * c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
    * d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

[Alex2x]

I think the way to go about this is completely separating the game's content from the engine - like Doom does for example, where the engine is free but the WADs - which include all the game's media - are commercial. This way people can make fully-working games based on your engine, but never clones of your original work.

This does involve making a special effort in designing your code so that the engine has none or very little game data, but perhaps that would make it easier to create content later on, so it would end up paying for itself anyway.

I'm in the middle of trying to make sense of this issue myself, so thanks for opening this topic

[xiotex]

Mmm, you got to be really careful here. Just ensure that code isn't in any way owned by Introversion (such as code written off time during their employment, as some companies will state that they own every line of code you write ... on or off the clock).

Lastly, source code is much more useful when it is explained to the general masses. So, if your source code is of high quality and you feel that it would be useful for people, then you can use it as premium content for tutorials or something like that.

That could be one way to go.

I had it written into my contract with Introversion that all code done under the banner of my company does not belong to Introversion.

[lordmetroid]

It says you have to give the source for free not the compiled software.

[weasello]

If anyone put out a game, and it had some sort of sliding scale at the end:

Donate $10 now!
... or donate $20 for the source code!

I would pay the $20 each time. Even if it's horrible, even if I never look at it, even if it was (unbeknownst to me) made available free. I just like the concept of "getting something extra."

I just can't say no to an offer like that.

[travisdunn]

How about you release the source code, but it's password protected and unlocked by a code the player receives once they've beaten the game. :p

Seriously, though, I think Snakey has the right idea, and that harvesting the source code for tutorial content would probably have a greater overall benefit in promoting your game, without what will likely turn out to be extra support work necessary to maintain the source for public consumption. As a long term strategy, you could eventually roll the tutorials into an ebook and sell that.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think the way to go about this is completely separating the game's content from the engine - like Doom does for example, where the engine is free but the WADs - which include all the game's media - are commercial. This way people can make fully-working games based on your engine, but never clones of your original work.

This does involve making a special effort in designing your code so that the engine has none or very little game data, but perhaps that would make it easier to create content later on, so it would end up paying for itself anyway.

I'm in the middle of trying to make sense of this issue myself, so thanks for opening this topic

an even simpler way: make the code gpl but not the data. i.e. the source code itself is free, but not the graphics, text, music, or other resources/data the source code uses.

[mjau]

All of Caravel Games' games are commercial open source.  Almost all of the source code is under the MPL (the only exception being the network parts that connect to paid online accounts), while game data (graphics, sound, official levels, etc) is not.  An interesting result from this is that since the source code is available anyway, the demo versions of the games are completely unrestricted in every way (there's no timeouts, a full level editor is included, custom levels and graphics can be used, etc), except they don't have all the graphics and music of the full versions, and only a few official levels.  Some people have used the demo versions for years, only playing custom levels (sometimes even making new ones -- they still contribute to the community).  Others are attracted by the official levels, for quality and for the story, and the extra graphics, music and so on and buy the full versions.  It seems to work well.  Some members of the community even help fixing bugs