Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
- Subject: Re: using the GPL Quake code in a commercial game
- From: Dietrich Epp <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:55:15 -0800
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 08:29 , Joseph J. Strout wrote:
At 6:51 PM -0800 12/3/02, Dietrich Epp wrote:
But it's still dishonest, trying to get people to pay for a game with
an engine you didn't write.
What?!? Did you write the compiler and assembler for the products you
sell? What about all those libraries you're linking against, which
(let's be honest) are doing 90% of the work?
No, but I have often paid for licenses to use them.
One pays for Metrowerks, no?
If you're making a game based on a GPL engine, then what you're putting
blood, sweat, and tears into is the game media -- artwork, AI scripts,
sounds (including custom music and dialogue), etc. This could easily
occupy a dozen people for a year or more on a decent-sized game. I see
nothing dishonest about trying to sell the result of all this work.
Lets say I make a movie. Much like today's games, much of the work goes
into it in terms of writing and art. I sell this movie, yet I didn't
license the movie from Eastman. They made the film - heck, that's 90%
of the work right there! Do you know how many years it took to develop
that film?
But I paid for the film. Eastman sold it to me.
With software it is different, because distribution cost is (or can be)
essentially nil. The GPL takes advantage of this, assuring that
everyone gets the software as long as you can distribute the software to
everyone. The GPL assures that everyone will have freedom to access and
modify the software. But if you sell the software, the dishonesty is in
saying "This software costs money." The reality is that the software is
still free under the GPL. The dishonesty is when you sell something
that is free.
But, your attitude is the sort of thing that worries me -- I suspect
there are others with a similar attitude, who would see such a game as
"just a Quake mod" and be unwilling to pay for it, however good it is.
Never mind that Alice, Heavy Metal, the latest Jedi game, and many
others are also "just" Quake mods too (though they all paid for a
license rather than using the GPL one).
This is the attitude that worries me - what I do, no matter how small,
deserves payment. Sure, it's legally protected. But for all the
calculator programs (for example) for OS X, few were freeware and none
that were freeware had any decent support for hexadecimal. Paying money
for a friggin calculator program? I saved my money by coding my own in
about an hour and a half last night. I already paid enough for my
computer, I should not have to pay more to use it to do bitwise
operations on hexadecimal numbers, I already paid the team at Motorola
who figured that out.
The reason you can't charge for Quake 3 mods is because if you do, ID
software won't get any money for it. They laid the foundation, and
you're selling the house. ID wants Quake 1 & 2 to be available under
the GPL, for freedom of exchange of information. Trying to limit that
freedom is what scares me.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.