|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 16:27:00 -
[1]
Will the non-commercial license be compatible with known OSI licenses, like GPL for instance?
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 17:08:00 -
[2]
I wouldn't exactly say that $99 dollar a year is inexpensive for a lot of services that are in essence non-commercial but try to reduce running costs by having adds or donations. If fans are forced to make a business out of it some may decide its not worth the bother.
A lot of the excellent services we have seen throughout the lifetime of Eve probably wouldn't have happened with terms like these.
Services that charge in-game ISK is an important meta-game aspect, expecting all of those to turn commercial also seems unfair. They would have to charge RL money to cover the CCP tax.
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 18:09:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kronus Heilgar
You are charging people who work for free to make your game better you asshats
Needs quoting for clarity so even CCP gets it.
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 19:56:00 -
[4]
First of all biz dev departments needs to be on the first exploration ship to populate unknown space.
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Please help us by continuing to give constructive feedback into how you want this service to be since our motives are really to empower 3rd party development and not to try to squeeze money out of starving programmers.
My suggestion is to give support to 3rd party developers who do it out of pure enthusiasm. One type of support could be well documented and maintained API access. Those people are providing a service for you, its not the other way around.
I doubt you will see a sprawling industry based on commercial 3rd party applications. There may be a few that make it, but I think you may end up crushing the hobbyists in the process. I don't think that would be a good tradeoff. I know that bizdevs and lawyers don't understand the concept of idealism and doing things for free, but it happens all the time in the world of gaming and software.
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 21:08:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lex Starwalker Bottom Line:
EVE Online is an IP, and CCP is 100% within their rights to do this. It's good business sense. It's not right for others to make money off someone's IP without the owner of the IP being compensated. That's why we have copyright laws to begin with. This is the real world. No free rides.
They are within their rights to do it yes, but good business sense?
Sometimes giving stuff away earns you more money. In this case CCP wants to charge people for working for them, in the past CCP allowed people to work for them for free.
Charging for something is only good business sense if there are clients willing to pay the fee.
|
Sarina Berghil
Minmatar New Zion Judge Advocate Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 04:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Casod Sutherland CCP, have you thought about whether your "non-commercial clickwrap agreement" will be compatible with FOSS licenses like the GPL? Because if it isn't, popular third-party applications that use GPL code, like EveMon and Pyfa, will be in a lot of trouble and may well have to shut down.
I won't claim to be an expert, but first impression is that there shouldn't be much problems with it for most things. It doesn't seem like they're restricting developers' rights to distribute or modify the code they create, only how you use them to access CCP-provided data, but I'm not entirely sure how the GPL handles those kinds of inherited dependenciesà
If you split it into a "framework" and "content" kind of model, it sounds like it should be pretty safe: you are free to GPL the framework; if you want to feed that framwork with CCP content, you need to get a CCP license. But the question is, if the framework is of no use without that data ù i.e. you're creating GPL code that can only be used with the RPC and data provided by CCP ù how does the GPL handle that? After all, you're not restricting the distribution or code, which is what the GPL is primarily worried about, but the code serves no purpose for people who aren't licensed to draw on CCP-owned data.
The GPL and most other OSI licenses don't restrict the data that an application 'dips into'. Also they don't attempt to spread the license through the data. API calls are a perfectly normal data interface that can make Open Source Software and Proprietary software co-exist.
I wonder what knowledge you have about the free license. I haven't seen it myself, so it's impossible to say how restricting it is. I asked on the first page myself. It's not unheard of that free to use development licenses specifically forbids sharing source code, or includes other NDA elements that would make Open Source development impossible. The fact that the blog mentions that non-profit developers need a free license in the first place makes me worry a bit. That shouldn't really be necessary.
But it's all guesswork on my part and impossible to tell without seeing the actual wording of the license.
|
|
|
|