License for an arcade game

[Pimm Hogeling]

Thanks Mitchell, John and Chuck, your replies have been informative.

I think I have things sorted out now. I will not use the MPL on my
code since it will allow others to use my code in closed
source/non-floss projects, which could endanger the progress of this
project because the effort that is put into the non-floss project
could have been put into this project otherwise. Other than that,
knowing others can use the code you write in non-floss projects might
scare away new developers.

Other material (other than code) will be licensed under GPLv3 as well.

Thanks agian.

2008/5/18 John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>:
> Pimm Hogeling scripsit:
>
>> I've started developing a new arcade game. I've decided that I want to
>> keep the project as open as possible so everyone can contribute (code,
>> graphics, sounds, even ideas), so they can make the game better for
>> all of us. To me, this also means that others shouldn't be able to use
>> the code in other works that are not open (such as commercial closed
>> source projects). I have read that since GPL code can only be used in
>> other GPL projects it will always remain open, so that sounds good to
>> me. Keep in mind that I am not and do not have a lawyer.
>
> What you want is a strongly reciprocal license ("strong copyleft").
> That means, as you say, that any modified versions must be licensed under
> the same license as the original.  There are several such licenses,
> but the GPL has the advantage that lots of content is available under
> it already and it is well-understood by the community.
>
>> However, I have two (probably simple) questions about licensing the
>> contents of my (or should I say "our") game.
>> First, to make this project as compatible and open as possible I was
>> thinking about using a dual MPL 1.1/GPL 3 license using section 13 of
>> the Mozilla Public License. Considering my "as compatible and open as
>> possible" and (maybe more important) "always remain open" statements
>> above, would you recommend a MPL 1.1/GPL 3 license, or would a single
>> GPL 3 or maybe even an other license be better in this case? I can
>> find enough info on the GPL, but the MPL is still a bit unclear to me.
>
> The MPL is a weakly reciprocal license.  MPLed code *can* be incorporated
> into proprietary works, but only if any changes made to the MPLed code
> itself (on a file-by-file basis) are made freely available under the MPL.
> Since you do not want your content used in proprietary works at all,
> you should avoid the MPL.
>
>> Second, the game is obviously not only code. It will also contain
>> graphics, sounds and maybe other resources. How should they be
>> licensed? Let's say I license the code as MPL 1.1/GPL 3, does this
>> mean the game (package) can only contain material (other than code,
>> that is) with a certain license?
>
> No.  First of all, you as the licensor are not bound by your own license.
> Second, works under the MPL can be incorporated into larger works under
> any license, provided the rule explained above is followed.
>
>> Could a Creative Commons license do the trick?
>
> There is no reason not to simply place the non-code resources under
> the GPL.
>
> --
> The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
> idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> use characters, nor does it encode logos
> or graphics.                                    cowan at ccil.org
>



-- 
Stuur me alstublieft geen Word- of Powerpoint bijlagen.
Zie http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.nl.html