a dumb GNU question

depot wrote:
> I think I've gathered that the gnu general public liscence doesn't
> allow copies of angband or variants to be commercially sold.

Seperate issues. Angband is not OK to sell. GPL'd stuff is. Angband is
not released under the GPL (or at least the copy I have isn't).
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

On 2006-09-06 02:22:52, "depot" <depot55.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I've gathered that the gnu general public liscence doesn't
> allow copies of angband or variants to be commercially sold. Also, I
> think that ADoM was made different because the author wanted to
> eventually sell his game and didn't use the same liscence as angband
> did.
>
> Now I'm interested in, someday (once I have more spare time), making a
> game somewhat similar to angband (it's always been a little irksome
> that the lower levels are a little boring, a little slowness in
> general, and diving is a possibility, etc.) but I also have a lot of
> other ideas that I might want to make money from with copyrights or
> patents or whatever someday.
>
> Yep, I'm greedy. I figure that gnu won't let me be this greedy.
>
> But if I wanted to copy something that's already fairly heavily
> protected, like warhammer stuff I read about or books or something in a
> movie; McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, celebrities, anything with huge
> industry and infringement protection, would the liscence protect me at
> all?
>
> Just curious. You know. It might be really funny to make a mockuband.
>
>
>

If you want to make a rouge-like game and sell it (or not distribute the source
code, or whatever) you just need to write it without using any code from
Angband. This would protect you from anyone disputing a breach of the GNU
Public License on the source code. If you close the ideas from an existing
game close enough you might run into trouble, but that is of a different type.

The likelihood that anyone would try to stop you from producing a game using the
basic rougelike structure, however, is quite low. When Blizzard made Diablo,
they basically just added graphics, simplified gameplay, and came up with their
own plotline. Otherwise, the game pretty much follows the rougelike formula.

Of course, as someone else said, your chances of actually making money from a
roguelike game are also extremely low.

Working on a project that falls under the GNU license would not protect you from
lawsuits for infringing on the trademarks of businesses, defaming them, etc.
There is generally a significant amount of leeway given to things that are a
clear satire and especially those that are not intended to produce a profit,
but I wouldn't take my chances with something like that if I were you.

As usual, the IANAL caveat applies.
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Antoine wrote:
> depot wrote:
>
>>I think I've gathered that the gnu general public liscence doesn't
>>allow copies of angband or variants to be commercially sold. Also, I
>>think that ADoM was made different because the author wanted to
>>eventually sell his game and didn't use the same liscence as angband
>>did.

Angband isn't GPL. It has its own license, which forbids it from
being sold. That's why it isn't in legal Linux distributions for
example; unless you give away the distro for free, Angband can't
be there.

ADOM was written by one guy, and he didn't release the source code
because people were obnoxious to him about insisting that he release
the source code. No source = Not GPL, but he doesn't restrict the
redistribution of binaries, so binaries make it into some Linux
distros and freeware disks.

>>Now I'm interested in, someday (once I have more spare time), making a
>>game somewhat similar to angband (it's always been a little irksome
>>that the lower levels are a little boring, a little slowness in
>>general, and diving is a possibility, etc.) but I also have a lot of
>>other ideas that I might want to make money from with copyrights or
>>patents or whatever someday.

There is no such thing as "impossible" -- only different degrees of
"awesome." Making money from a roguelike anything would be very, very
awesome. Don't rely on it happening in a single lifetime.

>>Yep, I'm greedy. I figure that gnu won't let me be this greedy.

Hmmmm.... It probably won't help. If you GPL a project, you'll
have to provide source code along with all binaries, or at least
let anyone with a binary have it if they want it. Also, you'll have
to forget about restricting anyone *else* from distributing the
source code. At least a few people will choose to give it away
free. If you compete with guys who give stuff away free, it's
hard to make money.


>>But if I wanted to copy something that's already fairly heavily
>>protected, like warhammer stuff I read about or books or something in a
>>movie; McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, celebrities, anything with huge
>>industry and infringement protection, would the liscence protect me at
>>all?

No, neither the GPL, nor any other license, will not protect you if
you use stuff that belongs to other people. Different companies have
different policies about going after people who aren't making a dime
off their stuff, but you'll get pasted pretty quick by virtually anyone
if you actually make any money off their stuff. (Hint; if you're
making money, then you have money they can sue you for...)

Bear
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

> Working on a project that falls under the GNU license would not protect you from
> lawsuits for infringing on the trademarks of businesses, defaming them, etc.
> There is generally a significant amount of leeway given to things that are a
> clear satire and especially those that are not intended to produce a profit,
> but I wouldn't take my chances with something like that if I were you.

Oh I would. It is perfectly possible to make money from good satire,
parody etc. - look at Weird Al Yankovic. I think a game which poked fun
at globalisation and celebrity culture, mocking real corporations and
celebrities, would go down very well. The problem, as others have said,
is that people aren't really prepared to pay for roguelikes. There are
too many available for free, and people nowadays are conditioned to
think that graphics=gameplay.

But writing an awesome satirical roguelike could get you a kind of cult
status, if it became famous enough ...

CC
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

chadhogg wrote:
> Of course, as someone else said, your chances of actually making money from a
> roguelike game are also extremely low.

But not zero. Diablo proves that.
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Hmmmm.... It probably won't help. If you GPL a project, you'll
> have to provide source code along with all binaries, or at least
> let anyone with a binary have it if they want it. Also, you'll have
> to forget about restricting anyone *else* from distributing the
> source code. At least a few people will choose to give it away
> free. If you compete with guys who give stuff away free, it's
> hard to make money.

But not impossible ... what's Red Hat currently valued at; does anybody
know?
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Twisted wrote:
> Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > Hmmmm.... It probably won't help. If you GPL a project, you'll
> > have to provide source code along with all binaries, or at least
> > let anyone with a binary have it if they want it. Also, you'll have
> > to forget about restricting anyone *else* from distributing the
> > source code. At least a few people will choose to give it away
> > free. If you compete with guys who give stuff away free, it's
> > hard to make money.
>
> But not impossible ... what's Red Hat currently valued at; does anybody
> know?

They get money for support, I guess you could create weekly/monthly
update packs for r_info with the latest goofers and irresponsible
companies

T.
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Twisted wrote:
> chadhogg wrote:
> > Of course, as someone else said, your chances of actually making money from a
> > roguelike game are also extremely low.
>
> But not zero. Diablo proves that.

Diablo == roguelike? I must not be thinking of the same thing you are.
Socks
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Antoine wrote:
> depot wrote:
> > I think I've gathered that the gnu general public liscence doesn't
> > allow copies of angband or variants to be commercially sold. Also, I
> > think that ADoM was made different because the author wanted to
> > eventually sell his game and didn't use the same liscence as angband
> > did.
> >
> > Now I'm interested in, someday (once I have more spare time), making a
> > game somewhat similar to angband (it's always been a little irksome
> > that the lower levels are a little boring, a little slowness in
> > general, and diving is a possibility, etc.) but I also have a lot of
> > other ideas that I might want to make money from with copyrights or
> > patents or whatever someday.
> >
> > Yep, I'm greedy. I figure that gnu won't let me be this greedy.
> >
> > But if I wanted to copy something that's already fairly heavily
> > protected, like warhammer stuff I read about or books or something in a
> > movie; McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, celebrities, anything with huge
> > industry and infringement protection, would the liscence protect me at
> > all?
> >
> > Just curious. You know. It might be really funny to make a mockuband.
>
> You probably want to post this to rec.games.roguelike.development
> instead (I have cross-posted in this message).
>
> Firstly, it is fun to make variants, go for it.
>
> Copying protected IP - opinions differ. It seems to vary from case to
> case. There is currently an in-development roguelike based on
> Warhammer 40K. No one's complained about it yet. There is also a
> completed roguelike based on Doom. No one's complained about that
> either. But then again, several years ago there was an Angband variant
> based on Anne McCaffrey's Pern series and that got legally challenged
> and had to be withdrawn and all the Pern-based content changed. I
> imagine something similar could very easily happen to a game infringing
> IP from people like Starbucks or Microsoft.
>
> And no, no form of licence will protect you from copyright infringment
> stuff.
>
> Finally, forget your ideas about making money from writing roguelike
> games, it's not gonna happen.
>
> A.

I wasn't thinking of marketing the angband variant, that'd be dumb. I
was curious if the variant's licence would prevent me from making a
commercial version later. I'm no good at clarifiying things. I also
didn't mention it but I figured that if I got in trouble for something
like that, anyone else probably would too. Is the inverse similar?

I just don't know much about copyrights and legal stuff. Maybe I
actually have interesting ideas that will sell excellently if developed
and maybe I don't, no need for discussion about that.

Thanks for all the responses. I didn't figure it would come along this
quickly.
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

Chris Raplee wrote:
> Seperate issues. Angband is not OK to sell. GPL'd stuff is. Angband is
> not released under the GPL (or at least the copy I have isn't).

What is it then?
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

depot wrote:
> I think I've gathered that the gnu general public liscence doesn't
> allow copies of angband or variants to be commercially sold.

Angband isn't GPL; it has a stronger license which does not allow
commercial sales at all. (GPL allows commercial use, it just forces
you to make your product also available for free download.)

>
> Now I'm interested in, someday (once I have more spare time), making a
> game somewhat similar to angband (it's always been a little irksome
> that the lower levels are a little boring, a little slowness in
> general, and diving is a possibility, etc.) but I also have a lot of
> other ideas that I might want to make money from with copyrights or
> patents or whatever someday.


>
> Yep, I'm greedy. I figure that gnu won't let me be this greedy.

I don't think you have a prayer marketing angband, and GNU has nothing
to do with it. (Just look at the size of the newsgroup compared to a
popular commercial roleplaying game like WoW.)

> But if I wanted to copy something that's already fairly heavily
> protected, like warhammer stuff I read about or books or something in a
> movie; McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, celebrities, anything with huge
> industry and infringement protection, would the liscence protect me at
> all?

You would be killed by lawyers if you tried, especially if you tried to
sell your product. (The original ToME was actually PernBand, and it
got shot down by McCaffrey's lawyers in no time.)
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

depot wrote:

> I wasn't thinking of marketing the angband variant, that'd be dumb. I
> was curious if the variant's licence would prevent me from making a
> commercial version later.

Okay.... The Angband codebase has bits of code under two distinct
licenses. The original Angband license forbids anyone to charge
money for distributing any product made with any of that code. That
license still applies to some fraction of the codebase, I haven't looked
lately to see how much. So if you plan to sell something, you will have
to replace *ALL* of the code that is still under that license.

The more recent updates and changes are all licensed GPL, which means
you can sell it or do whatever else you want, but you can't restrict
other people from also doing so. Furthermore, you may not use any code
released by others under this license for creating something that you
restrict other people from selling (or giving away).

If you want to release GPL code, and then later release products based
on proprietary versions of the same code, that's fine - you as the
author-and-copyright-holder can use *your* code any way you like or
release *your* code under any, or as many, different licenses as you
like. But there are two problems. The first problem is that you
won't be able to "un-release" any code you've already released under
GPL; people who have earlier versions of your project can keep using
them, updating them, running them, and redistributing them, so you
wind up competing with products based on earlier versions of the same
codebase. Further, these products, if anybody likes them, will contain
frequent updates and bugfixes you can't legally take into your
proprietary codebase.

The second problem is that if there is *other* GPL code in the
project besides the code that *you* contributed, you don't have
the same rights concerning that code. If you can find all the
authors and contributors and they all consent to your use of
their code in a proprietary project, well and good. But given that
they released under the terms of GPL in the first place, it seems
unlikely.

Bear
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question 

puppet_sock.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> Twisted wrote:
> > chadhogg wrote:
> > > Of course, as someone else said, your chances of actually making money from a
> > > roguelike game are also extremely low.
> >
> > But not zero. Diablo proves that.
>
> Diablo == roguelike? I must not be thinking of the same thing you are.
> Socks

Diablo is widely accepted as being a real-time, graphical roguelike
(the first, in fact). See the Wikipedia entry and citations provided
there.

One could argue that being ascii-based and being turn-based are the
very essence of roguelikeness, but one would be wrong, I think. There
are loads of people who use tiles, and there's not much between tiles
and sprites (Slash'em really isn't very far from Diablo). Real-time is
a bigger difference - but it's pausable, so even that's not much ...

CC
 >> Stay informed about: a dumb GNU question