Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mod and contribution licenses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Mod and contribution licenses

    Since I'll be able to subscribe to UE4 soon and I see some people are already running into this question, I think now is a good time to discuss and clarify what our options are when it comes to choosing a license for our programming work, with attention to different available Free Software licenses.

    Thinking about it, the situation here is much more complicated than it was with previous games, with some things less and some more restrained than before, and now there are several layers to think about when it comes to choosing licenses. So I'll go over the layers from the most internal to the most external and list the pros and cons I can think of. If something isn't actually feasible, please tell me!

    First we have contributions to core UE4 code. That means taking Epic's source files and modifying them, then sending them back as a pull request on GitHub.
    The UE4 source in general is copyright by Epic and is covered by the UE4 EULA. While according to the EULA non-Copyleft licenses can be used with it, but it also requires you to transfer all your rights to your contribution to Epic, once you make it available to them (which means sending a pull request or sending via email etc.; see §8) As such, I see only two viable license options here:
    1. UE4 EULA. That's the default. However, this license prohibits you from showing your own code to the outside world.
    2. Dual licensing. That means submitting the code under the UE4 EULA, while also hosting the contributions (but only them) outside the UE4 repository under a different license. This is not a very good option, because separating contributions to core code from the core code itself makes it of very little value and is pretty difficult by itself.
    Option number 1 might be the only one feasible here, since things are very interlinked and the code bits that you own are very unlikely to be of any use outside UE4.

    Next we have new file contributions to core UE4 code. That means writing one or more new files and submitting it to mainline UE4 (this often also requires adding hooks to core code, so possible overlap with the above case).
    Pretty much the same applies as above, but since your code is better separated, you have a bit more freedom. The options remain the same:
    1. UE4 EULA. That's the default. However, this license prohibits you from showing your own code to the outside world.
    2. Dual licensing of both the options above. That means submitting the code under the UE4 EULA, while also hosting the contributions (but only them) outside the UE4 repository under a permissive license. This is a fine option, as separate files may actually be useful outside the engine, and separating files is much easier than code bits, but you still need to be careful to make sure you don't copy anything from the core files to your own code files, and you can't apply any non-first-party updates to the code you release.
    In this case, option 2 seems overall preferable, as the result may be useful; albeit it will likely be short-lived as the code gets obsoleted.

    Next we have mutators and gametypes, which are code files that modify how UT4 works. This is the most unclear part, since it has to do with the Marketplace, and we hardly know anything about it at this point.
    Mutators live in their own directory structure, separate from pretty much anything else in UE4, and don't need to be mainlined to be used. That means that coders writing mutators have the most freedom in terms of choosing a license. The UE4 EULA §25 "Contribution" explicitly says that Marketplace submissions are not considered contributions to the core UE4, too. So this seems very similar to how mods worked in the past, with one pretty awesome exception: the EULA doesn't regulate your license choice at all, as in you don't need for it to be non-commercial. That's kind of the point of the Marketplace to begin with; but that's also important for Free Software licenses, too, as they have to be free from commercial restrictions as well to be considered such.
    There are only two things to consider here that I can think of.
    First: the mutator is a plugin for proprietary software. That puts a bit of a license requirement, because you can't use the regular GNU General Public License (GPL) with that. However, the Free Software Foundation does give you an option to add exceptions to the GPL for this purpose. See notes on that below.
    Second: The mutator, if covered by a license different from the UE4 EULA or a permissive one, will not be mainlineable until you submit it to mainline yourself (at which point UE4 EULA §8 kicks in). That means Epic can't integrate the mutator into the mainline UE4 tree until you give them express permission by submitting the content or granting them a license. Which may or may not be what you want. If it's not, you can pre-empt that by dual licensing.
    So all in all the options here are pretty much endless, but notable licenses to consider are:
    1. GNU General Public License (GPL) with a linking exception (more information here). It's a strong-copyleft license that allows anyone to redistribute, modify and make derivative works of your mutator, as long as those people also publish their changes publicly under the same license. Those who want to "steal" your code to use in a closed-source mod of their own (which they may intend to sell on their own, thus gaining money from your work) can't do that.
      The exception you need to use should sound about like this (for GPLv3+):
      Copyright (C) [years] [name of copyright holder]

      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

      This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

      You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.

      Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7

      If you modify this Program, or any covered work, by linking or combining it with Unreal Engine 4 (or a modified version of that library), containing parts covered by the terms of the Unreal Engine End User License Agreement, the licensors of this Program grant you additional permission to convey the resulting work.
      Note that this is NOT the same as the LGPL! A mutator is a plug-in for UE4; that means essentially from the perspective of the mutator, UE4 is a library. The mutator itself is what calls UE4 functions, not the other way round; UE4 can run fine without your mutator. The LGPL is for the reverse, when the LGPL work is a library that differently-licensed programs require to run, and the LGPL work doesn't explicitly expect to be running linked with any particular software.
    2. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) with a linking exception. The linking exception is required here as well, as mentioned above. Using LGPL with a linking exception as opposed to the GPL with a linking exception allows other people making mutators to link with your mutator, no matter their mutator's license, but for modifying and reusing your own code, everything applies like in the regular GPL. Which means that they can make a mutator for your mutator with any license they want (it may sound silly, but it happens; for instance, I have made a mutator for the UT2004 Unreal Game mod by :..:. as well as maps for the UTXMP mod by Free Monkey Interactive).
      There are good reasons to prefer the regular GPL, though: that way you proliferate the GPL, as all mutators of your mutator are also covered by it. Also the regular GPL is one exception less.
    3. Permissive licenses. These allow anyone to do almost anything, just to keep the copyright notice and author name (some more than others; the BSD 3-clause license requires the notice to be available to all end-users, others just in the source code). These are short and simple, but anyone can reuse your code in their own mutators and sell them, regardless.
    4. The Creative Commons CC0 license. This is Public Domain, which means anyone can do anything with it without any restrictions, even to the point of not crediting you anywhere. Most likely not what you want, but can be used for things that you really don't care about.
    I obviously prefer option 1. It's very nice that finally regular GPL should be usable for mutators.

    Then there are assets, like maps, textures, meshes, music etc. Like is the case with mutators, if you want it to just be an add-on and not mainlined, you can use whatever license you like. Most commonly the Creative Commons licenses are used for these:
    • CC-BY: The assets can be reused and modified, as long as the author is credited. This is like permissive licenses for non-code.
    • CC-BY-SA: The assets can be reused and modified, as long as the author is credited and the license is kept. This is like the GPL for non-code, and is likewise non-mainlineable.
    • CC-BY-NC: The assets can be reused and modified, as long as the author is credited and the work isn't sold for profit.
    • CC-BY-ND: The assets can be redistributed, but not modified. The author has to be credited. This is mean-spirited, so you shouldn't use this, but some artists feel very strongly about it, hence why this exists.
    • Pretty much any combination of the above.


    And finally there are mods, as a combination of mutators and assets. It's just the combination of above, if not intended for mainline. You should have separate licenses for your code and your asset files.

    I think this covers everything. I'm not a lawyer, so I might have missed something; in which case please correct me. In any case I hope this checklist is useful for everyone making content.
    Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
    My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

    #2
    I may misunderstand what you said, but I have to question whether or not I still have ownership when I submit a pull request. I know that many companies do take ownership of content submitted during specific processes, such as the Gears 3 art contest on deviantART where all art submitted became property of Microsoft. In order to protect myself, I also maintained my copyright by protection under dA's site, which allowed me to put a copyright notice that the artwork was in fact copyrighted to me.

    I guess what I am saying is that it behooves anyone submitting content of any type to ensure the content is dual licensed where appropriate. I don't think this can be stressed enough. If Epic approves the pull request, then I can see the content creator dissolving the additional license if it violates the terms of the UE4 (UT) EULA.

    I also agree on keeping code and other assets licensed separately when it comes to mods. There is no reason for mixed content to be restricted to a single license.

    Of course, there is the question of submitting assets, such as weapons or characters. Take the Enforcer model. Although an official version is to be delivered with the core game, can a community designer submit a variant on the marketplace and still have the right to use that same weapon with the same name in another software project, even though it looks different than the official weapon?

    Sorry if these are stupid questions or I failed to get the answer from your post.
    Promotional consideration brought to you by: Tarydium Shards, those neat little projectiles that remove unwanted flesh...from your opponents!

    Comment


      #3
      No no, those are really good questions and I'm glad you asked

      About the first one, I should have quoted the EULA so it's a bit more obvious as to what it says in §8:
      8. Feedback and Contributions

      If you provide Epic with any Feedback, Epic is free to use the Feedback however it chooses. If you make any Contribution available to Epic, you hereby assign to Epic all right, title, and interest (including all copyright, patent, and other intellectual property rights) in that Contribution for all current and future methods and forms of exploitation in any country. If any such rights are not effectively assigned under applicable law, you hereby grant Epic a non-exclusive, fully-paid, irrevocable, transferable, sublicensable license to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, make, use, have made, sell, offer to sell, import, modify and make derivative works based on, and otherwise exploit that Contribution for all current and future methods and forms of exploitation in any country. If any such rights may not be assigned or licensed under applicable law (such as moral and other personal rights), you hereby waive and agree not to assert all such rights. However, you may continue to freely use any Feedback that you provide to Epic, and you may continue to use, in any manner consistent with the License, any Contribution that you make available to Epic. For Unreal Tournament Contributions, you may continue to use such Contributions only in a manner consistent with the Unreal Tournament License.

      You understand and agree that Epic is not required to make any use of any Feedback or Contribution that you provide. You agree that if Epic makes use of your Feedback or Contribution, Epic is not required to credit or compensate you for your contribution.

      You represent and warrant that you have sufficient rights in any Feedback or Contribution that you provide to Epic to grant Epic and other affected parties the rights described above. This includes but is not limited to intellectual property rights and other proprietary or personal rights.
      So by submitting a pull request, you assign the copyright to Epic Games. As far as I know, if you make sure to dual-license the contribution before sending the pull request, then you retain the copyright of the version you didn't send (the one that's not under the UE4 EULA) and don't retain the copyright of the one that you submit (it doesn't matter that the code is the same at the point of submission, only that the license is different). That's the same idea as when submitting scientific papers to journals, called self-archiving. Of course, you can't make use of nor publish any changes that anyone else makes to your code, unless they make the changes to the differently-licensed version.

      So in practice, if you make new files and want to give everyone access to them, you should make a new repository, put those files in, put in the dual licensing notices, and then make a separate pull request without the licensing information (as it would be overridden by the EULA anyway). Once it's accepted and others want to contribute improvements also in the open, they can contribute to your repository first, then send the pull request on their own. A practical tip would be to tag a "release" once a pull request is accepted, so that anyone else who wants to participate could simply use `git diff <tag>` to get all the changes they've done since release and rebase them on mainline UE4. (If you don't expect anyone else joining, you could probably even simply omit the dual licensing and just use the wanted license, as upon submitting the work with license information removed it automatically gets the UE4 EULA applied; however, in that case if others make changes to your repository and want to send them to mainline, they'll need your express permission to relicense the code).

      Then about assets, §25 says:

      "Contribution" means any code, whether in Source Code format or object code format, or any other information or content, that you make available to Epic by any means (e.g., via submissions to forums, wiki, or Epic's GitHub UnrealEngine Network, or through email or otherwise). However, code, information, or content that you only make available to Epic as part of a Marketplace Submission at unrealengine.com/marketplace/submissions does not constitute a Contribution. In addition, mere use of code or content with the Licensed Technology, without making such code or content available to Epic, does not constitute a Contribution.
      Assets do fall under "other content". So §8 applies to them just as well. Meaning that once submitted, it's as if Epic had made it, not you, unless again you dual-license it, or not submit it in the first place. As §8 says, marketplace submissions (mods) are not contributions, so those don't fall under §8.

      As for your Enforcer example, since it's in the core and not distributed through the Marketplace, all its copyright is owned by Epic. Making derivative works, therefore, falls under the UE4 EULA. It doesn't matter if the result looks completely different, it matters that you used the model itself as a base. If you made a very similar model to the official Enforcer, but didn't use the source material as a base, then all copyright belongs to you and you can do as you please. In similar vein, if someone makes a mutator that changes how the Enforcer works, it can be licensed however you like as long as the mutator doesn't include any of the original code. However, if it did, then it falls under the UE4 EULA. You are free to look at the code (if you have subscription) to see how the original was coded, then rewrite it yourself, just not copy the code verbatim.
      Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
      My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

      Comment


        #4
        I'm currently unsure what type of license to choose. In general, I want the source to be reuseable for anything but commercial use. Most of the licenses are allowing commerial use.

        Have you chosen one license yet? Still unsure.
        ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
        ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

        Comment


          #5
          The question is why you want it to not be for commercial use. Free Software licenses all must allow commercial use, or else it's restricting the freedom of the users. However, the degree to which it can be monetised varies greatly.

          With copyleft licenses like GPL or LGPL, anyone who makes modifications to the code must keep the same license, and if the license says the code must be open, it stays open. Meaning that everyone who obtains the program also obtains the full source of it, and can freely rebuild the program as well as redistribute the source code. Such code is very difficult to monetise by nature, because the first person to buy the product gets the ability to give it out to everyone else for free. The reason why these licenses allow commercial use is for setups like Red Hat: they offer support contracts, so those who need it could call them and ask about how to solve issues in the software. Sometimes the issues are due to bugs, and Red Hat may fix them, and since the source is copyleft, the fixes are free and benefit the software projects themselves. It's a win-win situation. Red Hat uses the software commercially, but not in expense of the software source being closed. Forbidding commercial use would forbid selling software support contracts too. For more information see these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerc...copyleft_works https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

          So if you are only concerned about others closing down your code and profiting from your work, then choose a copyleft license. Even if it's not preventing all types of commercial use, it does ensure your code stays open forever. The main software copyleft licenses are GPL (strong copyleft – all things that depend on it must be GPL too), LGPL (weak copyleft – can be combined with non-copyleft code, as long as the latter is separate) and MPL 2.0 (weak copyleft too).

          Personally I prefer using GPL (v3+) for all my projects for those reasons. Of course, note that you need to add an exception for linking with UE4 in that case, as explained in the first post.

          If you absolutely need to forbid all commercial use, then you can use something like the Microsoft Shared Source License, but you probably don't want that.

          For non-code assets (since you can't sell support contracts for those, after all), you can use the CC-NC licenses: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ And yet even though it's not as bad to use NC licenses for non-code assets, it's still not the best idea, see this: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
          Last edited by GreatEmerald; 02-20-2015, 02:03 PM.
          Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
          My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

          Comment


            #6
            I don't want to force anyone to release their source code if they used/modified some code examples from my initial source code (if their software is distributed/published). My written source code should be free to use, modify, .... Any modified, ..., used source code doesn't need to be published but the orignal software and the author should be credited. The main purpose of releasing the source code for me would be for learning purpose for others but also show how that plugin works (pak/dll distribution).

            I want something similar to CC BY-NC-SA (4.0) but it is not recommended to use it for source code (because of obvious reasons). If I just want to forbid commerical use (just like CC BY-NC-SA), what would you recommend for source code then (UT mutators/gamemodes/plugins)?
            ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
            ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

            Comment


              #7
              I see. So you'd want something like a BSD license, but with an NC clause. There's none exactly like that that I know of, however, I'd recommend using the Mozilla Public License 2.0 for this case, because you'd essentially get the same effect you want: people who want to modify your code and not release the source can do so, because the MPL doesn't forbid combining MPL source with differently-licensed source; but since it's copyleft (for the source you write), it can't be commercially exploited (anyone who does that needs to provide the source bits that you did, as well as attribute the work to you). That also would make your code compatible with GPL and LGPL, which would make life much easier for those who wish to use that license. That's pretty much the aim for which the license was made in the first place; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License

              Alternatively, if you absolutely want to forbid any sort of commercial use, you could manually take the Modified BSD license and add a non-commercial clause yourself. But that has big drawbacks, because for one, writing clauses yourself is risky if you're not a lawyer, since it's hard to tell what courts would find enforcible and what not; and it would make the license non-free, forbidding combining your code with GPL code (as well as making all people who support software freedom frown on you).
              Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
              My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                [...]something like a BSD license, but with an NC clause. There's none exactly like that that I know of, [...]
                Exactly. Because of the monetizing part of the marketplace content/gameplay plugins (mutators, game modes and such), I want to prevent being outsourced/exploited. If that source is open and/or free, anyone might compile that exact source code and publish it in the official marketplace or somewhere else. It's totally allowed from its license (not sure about the restrictions of the Marketplace for UT). So it's all about the promotion of the plugin what versions users might check out first. There are 2 problems with that; 1. I don't want to allow anyone to make money of the same plugin, 2. I don't want anyone having to spend money to use that plugin (and 3. if the license is allowing non-public-source-code release; they might credit my initial work but modify the source code in that way that their own software would exploit its use in the sense of risk-/malware). Such licensing type is not working well with the main purpose of the marketplace, that UT is funded by the royalties from the paid community content. GPL, MPL (or CC-BY-SA for content; or similar) are my favorite as well except the part of anyone being able to exploit it commercially. A big no-no for me with the upcoming marketplace. Even if my stuff isn't that good, but such things are important for me. In the past, I released everything without a license. So it was something like MIT or PublicDomain (since right of copyright/IP basically exists automatically; in most countries).

                A famous example for such licensing exploitation is an Android app Kaiten (and its open source origin K9). Both are the same devs (not sure if it's still the case) and money which goes into Kaiten will also be used to provide newer versions for K9. That's a win-win situation. But I don't think that it would work for UT content/plugins.
                Last edited by RattleSN4K3; 02-20-2015, 08:26 PM.
                ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
                ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

                Comment


                  #9
                  I don't think there's much difference between the Marketplace and, well, the free market, albeit it does change a few things. So I think it's beneficial to build a few theoretical cases and see what licenses allow what and with what reasoning. First off, let's assume that you have made and released an open-source, gratis mod on the Marketplace. Starting with your suggested case:
                  • Others take your code source, build the mod, and put it on the Marketplace for a fee.
                    • Result: someone else potentially tricking people into buying free things. However, this is not likely to be allowed under the Marketplace terms in the first place; and even if it is, the vast majority of people will not get tricked. If there is a place to comment/rate mods, this would never get any sort of popularity. Also, to alleviate that some software includes readmes that state something like "this is free software, if you paid for it, ask for a refund".
                    • GPL allows this due to the reasons mentioned above. People are usually smart enough not to fall for those kinds of tricks. But the source must remain open, so everyone can make sure the code wasn't modified and see the attribution to you.
                    • BSD allows this also, but it also allows not providing the source code. It still requires attribution in a readme somewhere, though. It means you can't verify what was changed (and thus proving it's just a copy is very difficult).
                    • BSD-NC would not allow this.
                  • Others take your source, possibly make minor changes, build the mod, and put it on the Marketplace for free, but without linking to or publishing the source.
                    • Result: Two "competing" mods that are supposedly the same. However, your original would still be more popular, especially if you continue to update it. This is hardly worth others' effort, but if it happens, then you can't verify it really is the same mod.
                    • GPL does not allow this.
                    • BSD and BSD-NC both allow this. No money is being made, at least directly, and whether or not the mod now contains malware is of no concern, according to the license.
                  • Others make a small modification to your mod and release it for a fee.
                    • Result: Two competing mods, but slightly different, one free and one paid.
                    • GPL allows it as long as the modifications are made available. If you buy it, you can look and see exactly what changes were made, and if they're useful, integrate it back to your own project. Both you and others can buy it and make it available for free, likely making the free version a lot more popular than the paid one.
                    • BSD allows this. They did changes, and if their change is interesting enough, they get money for it.
                    • BSD-NC would not allow this.
                  • Others make huge modifications to your mod and release it for a fee.
                    • Result: Two quite different mods, one free and one commercial.
                    • GPL allows it as long as the source for the whole mod is made available. Once again you or anyone else can buy it once and build a free version of the same mod, which would easily win the popularity contest.
                    • BSD allows this. After all, they put a lot of effort into making it; they can do what they so please and ask for money in return.
                    • BSD-NC would not allow this.
                  • Others make huge modifications to your mod and release it for free, but without revealing the source code.
                    • Result: Two quite different mods, both gratis.
                    • GPL does not allow this.
                    • BSD and BSD-NC allow this; they made the modifications, so they can do whatever.
                  • Others make huge modifications to your mod and release it for free, with their modifications being under a free software license.
                    • Result: Two quite different mods, both libre.
                    • GPL allows this, as long as the license is compatible with the GPL.
                    • BSD allows this, no matter the license.
                    • While BSD-NC allows this, the free software license chosen by the others likely will not allow it, because BSD-NC is not a free software license and the resulting mod would not be free software either.


                  So this all depends on your viewpoint, I suppose. Also an option would be dual licensing, say GPL and BSD-NC: those who agree to share their source code could use it as GPL, and those who don't could use it as BSD-NC, but couldn't do anything commercial with it.

                  Also, feel free to suggest any other scenarios.

                  Originally posted by RattleSN4K3 View Post
                  In the past, I released everything without a license. So it was something like MIT or PublicDomain (since right of copyright/IP basically exists automatically; in most countries).
                  No, no license means all rights reserved, i.e. read-only. You can't make any modifications to it, you cannot even redistribute it whatsoever. You have to contact the author and get an explicit license from them to do any such things. Meanwhile CC0 (public domain) is the polar opposite, it allows you to do absolutely anything with it.
                  Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
                  My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Good list. Much to read ^^.
                    BSD-NC would be a custom one, right?... as I'm not able to find the most suited one for my conditions.

                    I really like the Microsoft Research Shared Source license but I think there is a similar license which I'm able to use for my project/code. I'll probaly use LGPL/GPL otherwise.

                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    No, no license means all rights reserved, i.e. read-only. You can't make any modifications to it, you cannot even redistribute it whatsoever. You have to contact the author and get an explicit license from them to do any such things. Meanwhile CC0 (public domain) is the polar opposite, it allows you to do absolutely anything with it.
                    But no license would allow to check how the code work and use the knowledge to create your own mods. "Verbatim copies" wouldn't have been allowed, however, I would have not mind that.
                    ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
                    ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by RattleSN4K3 View Post
                      Good list. Much to read ^^.
                      BSD-NC would be a custom one, right?... as I'm not able to find the most suited one for my conditions.
                      Yes, you'd have to write it yourself.

                      Originally posted by RattleSN4K3 View Post
                      I really like the Microsoft Research Shared Source license but I think there is a similar license which I'm able to use for my project/code. I'll probaly use LGPL/GPL otherwise.
                      Hm, this one is strong share-alike, so it requires all derivatives and modifications to use this same license. And since it's non-commercial, it's incompatible with GPL, too. That would be quite a hurdle for everyone involved. The MS-SS license is a bit better in that it's not quite as strongly share-alike, but still the same drawbacks apply.

                      So it would be better to just use GPL, even if that does have the (very small) risk of commercial exploitation. Or perhaps as mentioned to dual-license it, albeit it would only be beneficial if the other license is more permissive than the MS licenses. Also, if you are the sole copyright owner of the project, you can change the license whenever; meaning that if you, say, start with GPL, and get in a situation in which you consider your code to have been exploited, you can change the license to something else to prevent that from happening again.

                      Originally posted by RattleSN4K3 View Post
                      But no license would allow to check how the code work and use the knowledge to create your own mods. "Verbatim copies" wouldn't have been allowed, however, I would have not mind that.
                      Correct.
                      Unreal Tournament 4 eXpanded MultiPlayer (UT4XMP) efforts
                      My website, listing all my Unreal series mods and mutators

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                        [...] Also, if you are the sole copyright owner of the project, you can change the license whenever; meaning that if you, say, start with GPL [...]
                        Indeed. I ended up using GPL for now. Thanks for that.
                        ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
                        ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X