5E Character Create Playlist
Page 3 of 6 First 12345 ... Last
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenloe View Post
    I'd be very careful about using the GNU GPL license, for a number of reasons. The general allowance by SmiteWorks for people to use/base their extensions on existing FG code is that they're using that code with permission from SmiteWorks and that any extension code based on FG code could be merged back into the base product. Release of an extension under the GPL make's it very difficult for SmiteWorks to do that. And, for most parts, you're taking FG code released under a different license and then releasing it under the GPL, which could be invalidating the license the FG code was released under.

    I'm all for people developing FG extensions using existing FG code as the basis and giving back to the community. I also very much like seeing extension code becoming a part of the base product. Releasing an extension under the GPL could make the former break the SmiteWorks license for that code and make the latter very hard/impossible.

    For example, I specifically don't release my code under a GPL. I allow other community developers to use that code - out of politeness and courtesy I expect them to ask my permission and give me credit. Because my extensions all use SmiteWorks code to some extent (it'll be virtually impossible for them not to), SmiteWorks can take any aspect of that code and release it in any Fantasy Grounds products. In fact, a number of my extensions have made it back into the Fantasy Grounds base code. If I'd released my extension code under the GPL SmiteWorks couldn't do that without breaking GPL and non-GPL code out into separate files and detailing separate licenses - making the task very difficult for them and probably not making it worth their while, resulting in less/no community code making it back into the base product.

    I'm completely behind releasing FG extensions to the community and making it clear what the usage requirements/license that the work is released under, as long as that doesn't change the original license/requirements any code being used was released under, and that it doesn't result in SmiteWorks not being able to use that code in the future to make it available to all via the base FG product. So, if anyone releases FG extensions to the community please be aware of whatever license you're releasing the code under, whether you can actually use that license to change existing code, and what the implications of using that license are.
    So what is the recommendation here in regard to licensing? I want to be able to both use Smiteworks code and have the chance of having something make it back into the base FG product, but I also want anyone to be able to clone my code and run with it as they see fit.
    Is there a specific license here? Or do I just come up with my own licensing wording (or use something standard I can slap in my LICENSE file...)

  2. #22
    Oh, except I want to forbid people from cloning my code, modifying it then selling it. I want it and all derivatives of it to be free and accessible to anyone to clone and modify as they wish.

  3. #23
    My personal preference is MIT, but it is very permissive. Anyone can use my code for any reason, including repackaging and selling it. The copyright though belongs to me, so they can't assert their own copyright that would supercede mine. That works for me. I'm not a fan of anyone ripping others off by selling free code, but I don't imagine that would actually be very likely. And with MIT there is no problem at all with Smiteworks running with it if they wanted to incorporate anything.

  4. #24
    While I have not yet written FG extensions, I was a fan of MIT back when I wrote WoW addons.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Vam View Post
    My personal preference is MIT, but it is very permissive. Anyone can use my code for any reason, including repackaging and selling it. The copyright though belongs to me, so they can't assert their own copyright that would supercede mine. That works for me. I'm not a fan of anyone ripping others off by selling free code, but I don't imagine that would actually be very likely. And with MIT there is no problem at all with Smiteworks running with it if they wanted to incorporate anything.
    Does MIT cover the bases of being able to use Smiteworks code in my extensions and Smiteworks being able to potentially incorporate the code back into the base product? Looks like if someone was so inclined they could take my code, wrap it up and sell it but I suppose that'd be on their conscience if they did so.

  6. #26
    Keeping in mind I’m not a lawyer, it should allow SmiteWorks (or anyone) to incorporate your code.

    It does not free you from your obligations to comply with SmiteWorks’ terms on their code, but no license can.

    https://https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
    Last edited by Dire Weasel; February 21st, 2021 at 23:19.

  7. #27
    LordEntrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    -7 UTC
    Posts
    17,148
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenloe View Post
    I'd be very careful about using the GNU GPL license, for a number of reasons. The general allowance by SmiteWorks for people to use/base their extensions on existing FG code is that they're using that code with permission from SmiteWorks and that any extension code based on FG code could be merged back into the base product. Release of an extension under the GPL make's it very difficult for SmiteWorks to do that. And, for most parts, you're taking FG code released under a different license and then releasing it under the GPL, which could be invalidating the license the FG code was released under.

    I'm all for people developing FG extensions using existing FG code as the basis and giving back to the community. I also very much like seeing extension code becoming a part of the base product. Releasing an extension under the GPL could make the former break the SmiteWorks license for that code and make the latter very hard/impossible.

    For example, I specifically don't release my code under a GPL. I allow other community developers to use that code - out of politeness and courtesy I expect them to ask my permission and give me credit. Because my extensions all use SmiteWorks code to some extent (it'll be virtually impossible for them not to), SmiteWorks can take any aspect of that code and release it in any Fantasy Grounds products. In fact, a number of my extensions have made it back into the Fantasy Grounds base code. If I'd released my extension code under the GPL SmiteWorks couldn't do that without breaking GPL and non-GPL code out into separate files and detailing separate licenses - making the task very difficult for them and probably not making it worth their while, resulting in less/no community code making it back into the base product.

    I'm completely behind releasing FG extensions to the community and making it clear what the usage requirements/license that the work is released under, as long as that doesn't change the original license/requirements any code being used was released under, and that it doesn't result in SmiteWorks not being able to use that code in the future to make it available to all via the base FG product. So, if anyone releases FG extensions to the community please be aware of whatever license you're releasing the code under, whether you can actually use that license to change existing code, and what the implications of using that license are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Wizard View Post
    If you are using our code as the basis to develop your extensions, or copying our code to replace assets/scripts; you do not have the rights to enter that code into another license. You should be clear that only new code created for your community project is covered under whatever license you choose; and that code copied from our code remains under our license.

    Also, to Trenloe's point; we can't incorporate any code which is under a license not owned by the author, so open source license projects will most likely never be considered for incorporation since they would have to be rewritten from scratch.

    Regards,
    JPG
    So this point did not come up earlier in my "On Licensing: Distribution of Community Content" discussion. Could one of you please take a look at that and help me re-write it to be more accurate? https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...munity-Content

    Quote Originally Posted by Vam View Post
    My personal preference is MIT, but it is very permissive. Anyone can use my code for any reason, including repackaging and selling it. The copyright though belongs to me, so they can't assert their own copyright that would supercede mine. That works for me. I'm not a fan of anyone ripping others off by selling free code, but I don't imagine that would actually be very likely. And with MIT there is no problem at all with Smiteworks running with it if they wanted to incorporate anything.
    Well, if my early discussion is valid, CC-BY-NC should work for what you want right? Except for the issue of allowing SmiteWorks the commercial part. Not sure...

    Problems? See; How to Report Issues, Bugs & Problems
    On Licensing & Distributing Community Content
    Community Contributions: Gemstones, 5E Quick Ref Decal, Adventure Module Creation, Dungeon Trinkets, Balance Disturbed, Dungeon Room Descriptions
    Note, I am not a SmiteWorks employee or representative, I'm just a user like you.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LordEntrails View Post
    Well, if my early discussion is valid, CC-BY-NC should work for what you want right? Except for the issue of allowing SmiteWorks the commercial part. Not sure...
    For me I'm happy to have it re-used in commercial work. I'd be displeased by a simple repackaging for money, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. I think the closest CC license would be CC-BY-4.0, but I think MIT is more commonly known. I think that for daddyogreman the CC-BY-NC is probably good. Personally I wouldn't want to publish under his umbrella though if that required me to use his choice of license. I could always dual license under both, which would in effect be the same as just publishing under the one I want. "Your choice to allow commercial re-use or not". Heh.

    LordEntrails, while I have your ear I'd like to give you a hearty thanks for all of your efforts to help extension and ruleset developers understand all this stuff!

  9. #29
    The thing is - nothing you write in an extension works without smiteworks copyrighted commercial work. Period. You can't really separate what you "put on top of it" and somehow claim your part is distributable without their permission. Why licensing on selling is so limited. Now for free you can distribute it here for sure. Elsewhere? Where someone may profit from patreon or pay pal without giving Smiteworks their cut for basing all your work on theirs?

    That is not legit (or so I've been told). So... tricky walk you walk doing this. I wish you luck.
    Last edited by SilentRuin; February 22nd, 2021 at 00:45.
    Free(Forums/Forge) Extension(FGU 5E):
    Paid (Forge) Extension(FGU 5E):

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentRuin View Post
    The thing is - nothing you write in an extension works without smiteworks copyrighted commercial work. Period. You can't really separate what you "put on top of it" and somehow claim your part is distributable without their permission. Why licensing on selling is so limited. Now for free you can distribute it here for sure. Elsewhere? Where someone may profit from patreon or pay pal without giving Smiteworks their cut for basing all your work on theirs?

    That is not legit. So... tricky walk you walk doing this. I wish you luck.
    I don't buy this. The code in my extensions was written by me. I can distribute it however I want. Now if my extension contains a copy of work owned by Smiteworks then it is a derivative and bound by their license. Saying they own it because their software is required to run it would be like saying that Microsoft owns every piece of software that runs on Windows. Of course I'm not a lawyer, and this is just my opinion. For me it doesn't matter anyway since I'm happy to allow commercial reuse.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
DICE PACKS BUNDLE

Log in

Log in