For next: 213471
Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 111 days
|This has become a topic of interest for me lately.
A particular example comes to mind; id Software tends to open-source their old game engines, and they do it under GPL as far as I know. This makes sense because they can't profit off their game anymore, so release the engine under something that removes the incentive to commercialize future stuff derived from it. (GPL stuff can be commercialized, but it's kinda moot because people can just grab your source code and compile it for free)
However, anyone who wants to make modifications to the engine to facilitate a new game is forced to comply with the GPL. GPL makes sense when it's a bunch of people working towards one goal, but the project forking in order to make something entirely different yet being forced to stay GPL is a bit contradictive to GPL's promise of "freedom". A particular problem would be during a project's private testing; As I understand it, GPL requires that anyone who is given a copy of the project must also be able to receive the source code. So any testers who become unhappy with the project can just grab the code and run off with it, forking it before it's even done. For a game, this seems inappropriate.
This isn't to harp on GPL; GPL is very useful in certain applications, like research-driven projects, such as emulators and resource editors (rom hacking). However, using GPL in other situations (like more personal projects, such as games) seems to be a misstep.
Instead of choosing GPL, what would happen if id Software had chosen a 2-clause BSD license? Would there be any consequences? If commercialization is an issue, couldn't you surpress it with the license? As far as I'm aware, a derivative work cannot revoke a BSD license, only add more restrictions on top.
The reason I'm interested in this topic is because it's going to determine the course of action I take with my own projects later.