Open Source Licenses

[vitinho444]

Hey guys, im revamping my OLDTIMES Engine, and i want to make things right this time.. i mean everything.

So, i started the revamping, and sometimes i question myself, what license should i use with it?

I checked this website with open source licenses: http://opensource.org and it's great, but what will suit better with my engine?

I think GPL would be enough.. but i see that everyone who uses my code, needs to release his code too, and i don't want to force people to do that..

Basicly here's what i want:
1 - The source-code can be modified, distributed and stuff, for free!
2 - There can't be any money involved with the purchase or sell of this engine by others than the creators (me).
3 - The source-code is allowed to be copied without any limit.
4 - Display somewhere in the website (logo or footer) that the game is Powered by OldTimes Engine
5 - If there's a credits page, oldtimes engine website needs to be there.
6 - The source-code can be used in commercial games.
7 - If 6 applies, then games making more than 1000$ / year need to give the creators 5% each year*.

I thinks that's pretty much what i want.

What you guys think it's the best license for my case?

* - I don't know if i'm offending the community, but i don't think there's people who work for free in such a project that will allow others to make more than 1000$ by changing some lines...

[Kesstryl]

Good question, I've been researching this myself as well in picking engines I might use in the future. I think for your criteria you can't use GNU GPL because it states that copies can be distributed for commercial purposes. I think also GNU says source only needs to be included with anything distributed, not things interacted with, say an online game accessed by a browser. So a developer doesn't have to release source code under GNU if he is not distributing the game via client or other means, but only running it on a server that people can log into and play. If anyone knows more about this and thinks I'm misunderstanding it, please let me know because the wording is tricky.

As to which license would meet all your criteria, I'm not sure there is an open source license that can do that. If you are trying to get royalites then it sounds like you are making propriety software and you should come up with a propriety license stating all those things listed. Again if someone who knows more about licenses can correct me, I'd be happy to know if I'm not understanding all this.

[Kesstryl]

Actually the BSD might be what you are looking for, still not sure though how it ties in with royalties: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

[Jackolantern]

Yep, BSD and MIT licenses are the best if you don't want to make others share their code, and if you want to be commercial-usage-friendly. Check out my guide to open source licenses for more info

[vitinho444]

Well it's not mandatory that i would receive money for it.. but i think we all understand that if the engine is used on a big project and that project will generate big money i don't want to get a kick in the butt.

Also, i checked the BSD and MIT, i think i would go for the MIT but i dont like this part:

You can give the software away for free or sell it. You have no restrictions on how to distribute it.

I want that no-one can distribute but me, also i want just to be somewhere in the website of the games that are made with it, the message: "Powered by OldTimes Engine" and a <A HREF> to the engine's website.

[Jackolantern]

There isn't any open source license that has that, nor are there any that have a kick-back written into them. Oddly, it is part of basically all open source licenses that anyone can distribute or even sell your code. The general idea is that most people will at least do a search before buying it and see others are giving it away from free. It then puts the burden of offering some kind of value (service, packaging, etc.) on the user who is selling it. It is also a requirement of basically all open source licenses that the software is distributed with the license included, so people would see that they are paying for open source software. The biggest difference in open source software is if the user has to distribute the code and their changes if they use it.

But you would need to create your own license to require that only you can distribute it, to add a kick-back requirement, and require attribution, as that is a proprietary license, not open source.

[srachit]

Are you allowed to take a license lets say the MIT license and just remove the stuff you dont like or add stuff you want?

[vitinho444]

Are you allowed to take a license lets say the MIT license and just remove the stuff you dont like or add stuff you want?

Im also curious about this.

There isn't any open source license that has that, nor are there any that have a kick-back written into them. Oddly, it is part of basically all open source licenses that anyone can distribute or even sell your code. The general idea is that most people will at least do a search before buying it and see others are giving it away from free. It then puts the burden of offering some kind of value (service, packaging, etc.) on the user who is selling it. It is also a requirement of basically all open source licenses that the software is distributed with the license included, so people would see that they are paying for open source software. The biggest difference in open source software is if the user has to distribute the code and their changes if they use it.

But you would need to create your own license to require that only you can distribute it, to add a kick-back requirement, and require attribution, as that is a proprietary license, not open source.

Hum.. i see.. well so, i think i will go MIT license then.. nobody will use the engine i guess so no problem

[Jackolantern]

Are you allowed to take a license lets say the MIT license and just remove the stuff you dont like or add stuff you want?

You would have to track down the "license on the license" lol. I would say the "copy-left" ones like GPL probably don't allow it since their whole goal is to prop-up the open source community on their terms (namely equal sharing). The permissive licenses like MIT and BSD may allow that, but I don't know for sure.

[Kesstryl]

This page has some one/two sentence summaries of a few of the open licenses, thought it might help clarify and narrow down some of the info for you http://opengameart.org/content/faq#aren ... atible-gpl