this sort of license does present a problem in that if someone with a closed source mod has a fix that’s not been made public, they have a big disincentive to NOT share it, because they wouldn’t get anything in return due to your license not allowing them to incorporate any fixes in return for their contribution.
something you may want to consider.
If you have fixes in your open source mod that would benefit anyone, then there is nothing stopping you (the author of the fix) to allow everyone to use this fix, just like you would have to do if your mod would be closed source. The license does not restrict you from giving additional rights to any code you wrote yourself.
I think the only thing that really talks against the whole thing with open source is that what you code is what makes your mod “special”. If everyone can just copy that code and make a quick mod in 5 minutes your mod lose it’s value of being unique. I don’t care about the code per say, because everyone wants to look at code and get inspired by code but you also lose something if you share, especially if it’s a one way street which it usually are.
That’s not to say that people shouldn’t post bug fixes, well maybe if that’s what makes your mod unique then maybe not but that’s something that everyone gains from without loosing the uniqueness of the mod.
Just my 2c
but a GPL license would be a big disincentive for the closed source mod authors to NOT share their fixes, because they wouldn’t be able to use any fixes in return.
something along the lines of a BSD license might be more palatable, then closed source mod authors could share their fixes without worrying about the sharing being a one-way-street as it would be with the GPL.
you could even make the license something like, if you are a closed source mod and you want to use a fix from this opensource code, you need to contribute something first.
But that’s what I answered to? Open source mods can only use fixes that the closed source mods share willingly. It’s the same way the other way around. Just ask the author if you can use a certain fix in a closed source mod. Even if the author would be a dickhead and deny this, you would at least know how the problem can be fixed by reading the code and then write your own fix. It’s more difficult if a closed source mod author decides not to release fixes. I really don’t see what closed source mods could be losing from this deal, other than that they would be excluded from the general code sharing obviously.
A BSD style license would kinda defeat the entire idea behind this. 
Then we could just release the source as is (which is always a nice thing to do of course, but not a real option if you want to remain “competitive”).
Just to make this clear, I have nothing against closed source mods, I just think that it’s a really good idea to write open source mods, as everyone benefits from this. :drink:
my point is that you are far more likely to get patches submitted if you go with a BSD-style license, and you will get far fewer patches if you go with a GPL license.
so it all depends on how successful you want the project to be. if you go GPL I can virtually guarantee the project will die.
GPL works great with other categories of software, but I don’t think game mods is one of them.
That’s really arguable, but it doesn’t matter. A mod using GPL will die for a simpler reason: You can’t distribute the DLLs. The GPL will require you to give out the full source code under GPL to whatever binaries you provide.
Since the mod will be based on code owned by SD/id/activision, it’s impossible for all that to be GPL. Therefore a GPL mod will only be usable by admins who are willing to download the mod patches, download WET_Source.exe, combine them, and then compile it. Which means nobody will use it.
(If you’re not aware that GPL requires the distribution of full source and not just some patches, read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient)
Well yes, that would kill it there since you can’t relicense the ET source without id/activision’s explicit permission (which is not likely).
But someone could take it upon themselves to write a fully GPL mod from scratch to run on the existing engine. It would be a lot of work though.
And if they did, your point about the willingness of other programmers to contribute patches to BSD vs GPL projects wouldn’t matter… since the wholely new GPL code will be completely different from any other mods, the fixes wouldn’t be compatible.
/me honestly doesn’t see the point
they’re releasing a free game, giving you the source code… and you’re still not satisfied for some reason or another; that makes no sense
Kamel, what are you talking about? This is about mod developers sharing their source.
Bani: There is no reason why a OSML (let’s stop talking about the GPL :)) mod should die just because no patches are sent. I’d even expect that no patches will be sent. The point is that forks are possible (for example to create new gameplay variations or just to serve a different playerbase) and if one OSML mod develops a cool new feature, then all OSML mods can take advantage of this. It is a chance for greater cooperation, it has no disadvantages in itself (unless you want to keep others from taking advantage of your code). If there aren’t many OSML licensed mods, then obviously it won’t be a real advantage, but it will also not make anything worse. It would be just the same as developing a closed source mod, just that other people could read and learn from your source. The fact that you might occasionally receive a patch, like a bugfix would be nice of course.
what codebase would you be OSML’ing though? you cant relicense the ET SDK.
it’s nice to talk about what could be done, if you actually had a codebase you could license. but what can be accomplished right now, or even in a year? I expect it would take at least that long for a dedicated team of coders working fulltime to come up with a from-scratch SDK for ET that could be open source licensed.
The OSML should be entirely compatible to the ET EULA to my understanding. Otherwise it wouldn’t be legal for Tremulous (unless the ET EULA is vastly different from the Q3 EULA) and I doubt that RR2DO2 would mention it.
After all it has always been our choice to release the derived source or not, so why shouldn’t it be possible to put additional limitations on source which we release.
Edit: Also note this part of the OSML:
In the event of a conflict between this license and the license, disclaimers
in code, etc of the game being modified, the conflicting parts of this license
do not apply.
i’ll say this though, its quite obvious that the OSML was not written by someone schooled in the legal profession, and keep in mind that tremulous was “licensed” for a while under the GPL which is quite clearly in error (read the tremulous cvs archives for proof).
youll want to have a real lawyer evaluate ET’s license vs the OSML before stepping into the land of deep legal doodoo :moo:
Why would I want that? It’s pretty obvious that it’s not illegal, the worst thing that could happen would be, that someone finds a legal loophole to take the source but not release it with their mod. That would still not make it right with the community and considering that we all do this for fun and not for money, I wouldn’t be bothered about this possibility. There have been and there are other open source mods, so I don’t even see the point of this discussion. What counts is that some of us will actually do it, so we can start a culture of code sharing.
If one were to make an ‘open source’ mod, how would they go about using gpl / osml to do it?
well if you can’t be bothered to make sure the licenses are legally compatible (by a lawyer), i certainly wouldnt touch it, since i can’t be sure what would be done with the code i submit. i dont care to submit code to a project which you yourself admit may be open to loopholes.