Free Software

[Lee_Stricklin]

Well, I don't have a problem with him making a profit off of it, but I do think that the software should still value user freedoms. You're right, it is his choice, and not mine, but I'm just trying to persuade him. I still think he should market it and sell it for some money. That's not possible, I even wrote an article on how to do that, http://meoblast001.mysticgalaxies.com/philosophy/freedomware/freebusiness.html. DRM and other forms of spying on the user can be done without you knowing it, unless you can get the source. And if you want to adapt a program to a specific task (even with a game), how are you going to do that without the source. It is my goal to minimize the development of proprietary software in the world, so I obviously don't want Capsized to be proprietary. Take a look at that link, it might change your perception.[/url]

Oh I get it. Your saying that even if the game is sold for profit that the source code should still be available for it so that it can be modified to either improve the game or make it run on hardware it otherwise wouldn't run on without a modified source code. I'm assuming that you'd still be OK with leaving the content (maps, sounds, characters, etc.) out as that is the part that would sell the game. What if the devs wanted to market the engine and make a profit off of that though? I think they would find it quite difficult to do that if the code is publicly available. How would that work?

[meoblast001]

Well, I don't have a problem with him making a profit off of it, but I do think that the software should still value user freedoms. You're right, it is his choice, and not mine, but I'm just trying to persuade him. I still think he should market it and sell it for some money. That's not possible, I even wrote an article on how to do that, http://meoblast001.mysticgalaxies.com/philosophy/freedomware/freebusiness.html. DRM and other forms of spying on the user can be done without you knowing it, unless you can get the source. And if you want to adapt a program to a specific task (even with a game), how are you going to do that without the source. It is my goal to minimize the development of proprietary software in the world, so I obviously don't want Capsized to be proprietary. Take a look at that link, it might change your perception.[/url]

Oh I get it. Your saying that even if the game is sold for profit that the source code should still be available for it so that it can be modified to either improve the game or make it run on hardware it otherwise wouldn't run on without a modified source code. I'm assuming that you'd still be OK with leaving the content (maps, sounds, characters, etc.) out as that is the part that would sell the game. What if the devs wanted to market the engine and make a profit off of that though? I think they would find it quite difficult to do that if the code is publicly available. How would that work?

With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

[Lee_Stricklin]

With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

That sounds like it would work to an extent. Couldn't they also charge for a license that would allow somebody to use it for commercial purposes?

[meoblast001]

With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

That sounds like it would work to an extent. Couldn't they also charge for a license that would allow somebody to use it for commercial purposes?

Well, to be a truly free software license, it would also have to fit freedom 0, to use the software for any purpose. Restricting commercial use would make it a non-free license.

[some-guy]

With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

That sounds like it would work to an extent. Couldn't they also charge for a license that would allow somebody to use it for commercial purposes?

Yes, they would just need to dual-license it like what was previously the case for Qt.