We need a GPL for games

[Bad Jim]

The GNU General Public license and similar open source licenses have provided a successful model for many kinds of software development, but not games. There are two reasons for this, IMO:

1) It only covers code, while the bulk of the work in AAA game development is the various art assets. Sadly, it's the art assets that would be much easier to recycle in other works. Code is much less interchangeable.

2) There isn't really a way to monetise it. Most open source developers make money from tech support and training workers in using their software. But games must be easy to learn so that's not an option.

To resolve these problems, I advocate a game license resembling the GPL, but with two differences.

1) It covers art assets

2) When distributing, you can specify a date up to five years later. The recipient must wait until that date before redistributing. So the developer effectively gets a five year copyright period.


This license would allow games to be developed profitably, but DRM and similar restrictive anti-consumer bullshit would be impossible, because the user would have a right to modify the game and remove it. Why would a developer use such a license? Because the developer could recycle assets from other games and make the game for much less.

All it needs is a few games to start. Maybe a kickstarter or two could help.

What do you think? Zero DRM, AAA quality games at with low dev budgets? Possible?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If it weren't for the second rule, the GPL itself would probably work, and a Creative Commons license certainly would. I'm pretty sure the GPL covers more than just the code -- in fact, I remember the Open Arena team having a lot of infighting because the people doing the art assets (mainly the textures and other 2D art) wanted their stuff to be covered by something more restrictive than the GPL, like some of the different flavors of Creative Commons.

By the way, what you're describing is basically the original US copyright law, but with a period of 5 years instead of 15. Going back in that direction is most definitely a good thing.

 

[targren]

As for #1) That's not a problem with the GPL. The developers the deciding of what's covered under the GPL.

#2) What's the difference between the second rule, and the company just waiting until the game is old to release it under the GPL (see: iD and each Doom engine, eventually)?


The biggest problem is that gamers are whiny and picky, *especially* when it comes to "art assets." Why would they pay the metric buttload of money for them and then give them away later? Programmers and developers often don't mind working for free, if the project is interesting enough. I haven't met too many modelers, graphics designers, or composers that do very often, though. More's the shame, 'cause I agree it would be nice (though, as a developer, I'm very careful to stay away from GPLed source whenever possible)

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well there are other open licenses for more then software, but the problem is those licenses are for a more civilized time.
Right now it's all about money, and when a single new sprite/model/texture can earn you up to $10 via DLC why would anyone make them for free.

And the worst part of these open license assets is theft, open source projects have their hands full of people who steal code/concepts and license them as their own, then turn around and sue the open source community for theft...
The most prominent one was a company claiming they had made the core of Linux and was under their copyright all along, then they sued all major Linux producing companies in an attempt to cash in or take over, and with the massive backing from Microsoft they were at it for years.

 

[Yopaz]

Well there are other open licenses for more then software, but the problem is those licenses are for a more civilized time.
Right now it's all about money, and when a single new sprite/model/texture can earn you up to $10 via DLC why would anyone make them for free.

And the worst part of these open license assets is theft, open source projects have their hands full of people who steal code/concepts and license them as their own, then turn around and sue the open source community for theft...
The most prominent one was a company claiming they had made the core of Linux and was under their copyright all along, then they sued all major Linux producing companies in an attempt to cash in or take over, and with the massive backing from Microsoft they were at it for years.

Pretty much this. There's no need for companies to change their policy if they are still making money. Squeezing customers for money through DLC and expansions is effective and it doesn't require too much work. I really love open source programming, but sadly this guy got the realistic view on it.

 

[Bad Jim]

What's the difference between the second rule, and the company just waiting until the game is old to release it under the GPL (see: iD and each Doom engine, eventually)?

That you can use the code and art to make your own game and sell it. This is technically possible under the GPL, but practically impossible since it can be legally pirated.

when a single new sprite/model/texture can earn you up to $10 via DLC why would anyone make them for free?

You would be able to charge money for five years. And you would be able to re-use assets and code from a number of previous works.

Why would you want to 'open source' your art assets if you want to monetize on them anyway?

Free software is intented to be free in the sense of freedom, not in the sense of not having to pay. Freedom is a lofty goal that is sadly getting very scarce in the games industry. But there is no moral imperative for games or software to be free of charge. Someone must pay the cost of development and the appropriate people to pay that cost are the beneficiaries. Therefore it is not a contradiction to devise a license that gives the maximum possible freedom to the user while still allowing the developer to charge money.

Also, recycling assets. Not a good idea unless you want all the games to look the same.

I'd say that a fair bit of recycling can be done while still making a game look unique. Recycling main characters wouldn't work very well, but you can take trees, grass, brick tectures etc from other games without it being obvious.

It would be a huge help for independant developers, for whom it would vastly increase what they could do on any given budget.

Also, it would possible to fix someone elses' flawed masterpiece on a for-profit basis.

 

[targren]

What's the difference between the second rule, and the company just waiting until the game is old to release it under the GPL (see: iD and each Doom engine, eventually)?

That you can use the code and art to make your own game and sell it. This is technically possible under the GPL, but practically impossible since it can be legally pirated.

Ignoring the oxymoronic nature of "illegally pirated" for the moment, that's the entire POINT of the GPL. If you make a "GPL for games" which doesn't allow it, it's nothing like the GPL. It should also be noted that, as long as you own the copyrights to all of the code and assets, you can change the license whenever you want, so you can sell it for 5 years under the industry standard "We can blow up your computer and rape your dog, because you'll agree to it so that you can play Call of Diablocraft XXVII" EULA, then release it under the GPL after that.

The type of license you're thinking of exists in multiple incarnations, if I'm understanding you. The source code is there, but you want the next developer in line to be able to take that code, modify it, and sell it as a closed source license? You can use the existing FreeBSD and MIT licenses, for example, to allow just that.

 

[Esotera]

GPL for source code and creative commons for image files. Bam, thread finished.

What we need is to encourage more developers to adopt a GNU model. Releasing your game for free & letting people fork it isn't something most indie devs do at the minute, so figuring out an effective model using something like kickstarter would really help.


edit: this thread has interested me so I'm going to add a few of my thoughts on how a free model could work, and counter a few points other people have made.

Why do it for free if you can get paid?

Because other people can also do it for free, and if you're not good at making realistic horses as a game model, then you can adapt on something that is good.

No need to change current practice

Bollocks. We're headed for a crash in AAA titles and a big change in what type of platforms we play games on. It's no longer £60 for a game, it's a couple of quid or free to play. Creating an open source physics engine would be way more useful than coding one yourself for something like Android or Iphone, as you don't have to constantly maintain it or do initial development costs. If you were really sensitive about copycat apps, you could add a clause onto the GPL saying that there have to be significant changes.

Thoughts on how to get there

- Get a few successful games to be developed on kickstarter completely libre. The development costs are recouped by the funding, and upon release the source code and all other files are released under open licenses.
- Start off by getting core developers of successful, good quality, games (like Hedge Wars) to do a few projects.
- Support open source games by paying for them, or making donations.
- Make the source code irrelevant, like with facebook or WOW. The user base is the important money driver there. RedHat are a successful company through charging for support - maybe there's something in their approach.

Licensing quibbles aside, this is pretty much it. It's not a question of the licensing. It's a question of the motivation: no one WANTS to do this, so it doesn't get done (hyperbole, I know. There are some fairly well-done open-source games out there, assets and all).

If I ever get the time to finish off creating one of my games, then I will quite happily release everything as libre, and I know there are others out there who would spend a few hours a week contributing to a project. The biggest issue is probably organising all the interested people and managing them so that they produce something good.

If the industry goes the way of DLC and advertising, then we'll probably see a lot more open-source games.

 

[targren]

What we need is to encourage more developers to adopt a GNU model. Releasing your game for free & letting people fork it isn't something most indie devs do at the minute, so figuring out an effective model using something like kickstarter would really help.

Licensing quibbles aside, this is pretty much it. It's not a question of the licensing. It's a question of the motivation: no one WANTS to do this, so it doesn't get done (hyperbole, I know. There are some fairly well-done open-source games out there, assets and all).

 

[Bad Jim]

The source code is there, but you want the next developer in line to be able to take that code, modify it, and sell it as a closed source license? You can use the existing FreeBSD and MIT licenses, for example, to allow just that.

FreeBSD and MIT are permissive licenses that let you do whatever you like. They let evil corporations like EA take the code and profit from it however they like. I'm after an open license, something that prevents EA from profiting from it unless they distribute it under an open license that preserves user freedom.

The main idea is that the license gives the user freedom, but also offers future developers an incentive to use the same license. In exchange for making less money than they could with a proprietary EULA, they get to make the game for much less because they can freely use any asset that has been under the license for five years.

 

[targren]

So you're basically looking for something like the GPL that applies only to developers, but NOT to users? Since if it applies to users:

That you can use the code and art to make your own game and sell it. This is technically possible under the GPL, but practically impossible since it can be legally pirated.

I think that would be a pretty hard sell, honestly.

 

[Bostur]

The source code is there, but you want the next developer in line to be able to take that code, modify it, and sell it as a closed source license? You can use the existing FreeBSD and MIT licenses, for example, to allow just that.

FreeBSD and MIT are permissive licenses that let you do whatever you like. They let evil corporations like EA take the code and profit from it however they like. I'm after an open license, something that prevents EA from profiting from it unless they distribute it under an open license that preserves user freedom.

The main idea is that the license gives the user freedom, but also offers future developers an incentive to use the same license. In exchange for making less money than they could with a proprietary EULA, they get to make the game for much less because they can freely use any asset that has been under the license for five years.

"This software is released under a proprietary licence for 5 years. After 5 years the software is free provided that derivative works use the same licence. Derivative works may be unfree for a period of maximum 5 years.
If the user disagrees with the licence national laws apply."

Is that what you mean? It could actually be an interesting idea. I haven't seen that kind of licensing terms, maybe because it's a legal minefield.

In practice the copyleft idea is a bit of a stretch of copyright laws, and is very restrictive because the idea of free stuff is unsupported by legal tradition.

 

[Bad Jim]

So you're basically looking for something like the GPL that applies only to developers, but NOT to users? Since if it applies to users:

That you can use the code and art to make your own game and sell it. This is technically possible under the GPL, but practically impossible since it can be legally pirated.

I think that would be a pretty hard sell, honestly.

It applies to everyone. I'm not sure I understand why you think it would be a hard sell. A hard sell to whom?

 

[targren]

Is that what you mean? It could actually be an interesting idea. I haven't seen that kind of licensing terms, maybe because it's a legal minefield.

It could also be that the GPL approach has a big advantage over this one: You're giving out your old, outdated code, but your competitors CAN'T (reasonably) use it to create competition to your new game.

To use a current (and noisy) example to illustrate: Could you imagine what would have happened if Blizzard had used this approach? Diablo II would be out there now for anyone to create something that, to judge by the complaining and the assertions that "they're just mad because it's not D2", would be kicking D3's arse.

I think that would be a pretty hard sell, honestly.

It applies to everyone. I'm not sure I understand why you think it would be a hard sell. A hard sell to whom?

The developers.

 

[sadmac]

The GNU General Public license and similar open source licenses have provided a successful model for many kinds of software development, but not games. There are two reasons for this, IMO:

The main reason is there's no iterative development for games. A game is expected to have a "release" where it shows up fully featured. Other types of software can be written with minimal functionality very quickly, and then gradually build functionality and userbase at the same time. Open source is good at this because contributors can amass slowly and contribute as much as they want.

Minecraft is a good example of a game that followed a more open development arc: it was developed before the players' eyes and the growing interest fueled the development.

I'll add as an anecdote that every AAA open source game attemt I've seen has fallen apart due to infighting and a general 17-year-old mentality among the developers. I can't begin to fathom why, but I've stumbled across more than a few long-abandoned dev forums whose last 40 posts or so read like a Dawson's Creek script.

1) It only covers code, while the bulk of the work in AAA game development is the various art assets. Sadly, it's the art assets that would be much easier to recycle in other works. Code is much less interchangeable.

2) There isn't really a way to monetise it. Most open source developers make money from tech support and training workers in using their software. But games must be easy to learn so that's not an option.

Point 2 is somewhat valid (I'll get back to it). Point 1 is false in two ways. First: code is interchangeable (with the exception of a few top layer bits), while art isn't. Most fantasy MMOs will have a completely different Orc design. They all probably have almost exactly the same graphics pipeline.

In fact, open sourcing the code wouldn't even really have any symptoms in terms of monetization. If all your games shared the same open 3D pipeline and sound code, they'd get released faster, cost less, and everyone would still get paid. Things like Ogre3D have tried to do this, but with limited success.

2) When distributing, you can specify a date up to five years later. The recipient must wait until that date before redistributing. So the developer effectively gets a five year copyright period.

I think the better approach would be a kickstarter model: collect the money before you even make the game, riding on a pitch and your studio's reputation. There's also the "hat on the ground" model of artistic compensation: when you walk through a subway, sometimes a guy is playing the saxophone. You get to enjoy that music, and if you feel a responsibility to compensate him for improving your commute, his hat's on the ground. I could have just said "donation model" and been done with it, but it's helpful to realize that this way of funding the arts isn't unprecedented or weird.

And the worst part of these open license assets is theft, open source projects have their hands full of people who steal code/concepts and license them as their own, then turn around and sue the open source community for theft...
The most prominent one was a company claiming they had made the core of Linux and was under their copyright all along, then they sued all major Linux producing companies in an attempt to cash in or take over, and with the massive backing from Microsoft they were at it for years.

You're grossly mis-characterizing the SCO group's charade. They never claimed they owned Linux's code. They claimed they owned the definition of Unix, which would put OSX and several other operating systems under their umbrella. It should be noted that they won no real victories and ended in bankruptcy. The other thing you might be conflating is patents, which don't protect actual code, and in some cases can let you sue people who implemented your idea before you patented it. Nobody's safe from that, open source or otherwise, but Linux in particular has been a target of a lot of it lately, mostly by Microsoft (their Novell pact was all about this).

There's been no great difficulty in enforcing the GPL, at least no more than any other software license. It's legally sound and violators are periodically shaken out.

Disclosures: I am not a lawyer. I do, however, work for Red Hat.