Re: Carmack on free licensing code and art in games

[mowerpower]

For the general interest of folks 'round here...

In his response to a slashdot question back in October 1999:

10. Hobbex asks:

...

Do you think that Open Source will play a part in the future of game development?

Carmack answers:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about that.

I was trying hard to get an article together about game code licensing to go out with the interview questions, but I just didn't make it in time. I had written three pages of article and four pages of other stuff that I had ripped out because it was going off on various tangents.

First, it is interesting to examine how coding is similar or dissimilar to art, music, design, etc. Most GPL works don't have to face the issue, because the work is clearly dominated by code. A few little icons aren't enough to make people really think about it. The argument is significant for games, because coding is only about a third or less of the work in most cases. The arguments that RMS puts forth for the ethical rightness of free software also seem to apply to all digital media. If you take them seriously, the spirit of the GPL seems to want to say that all digital media should be free. That isn't a pragmatic battle to try and fight.

If you just focus on the code, I think there is indeed a viable business model for a line of titles based on open source code with proprietary data. It will take either a very small company, or a very gutsy big company to take the first step. The payoff won't be until the second product.

I think open source is at its best with games (and probably most other things) in a post-alpha model. Fixing, improving, and building upon an existing core is obviously extremely fruitful in an open source model.

Going open-source from development day one with a game probably doesn't make much sense. Design by committee doesn't work particularly well, and for something with as much popular appeal as games, the signal to noise ratio would probably be very low.

I tagged along at the beginning of a from-scratch open source gaming project (OGRE), and it more or less went how I feared it would - lots of discussion, no code.

While the mod communities may not be exactly OpenSource?, I think they work very well. There is some value in having focused areas to work in, rather than just having the entire thing dumped in your lap.

I am going to be releasing the majority of the code for Q3 soon, but there will still be proprietary bits that we reserve all rights to. We make a fairly good chunk of income from technology licensing, so it would take some damn good arguments to convince everyone that giving it all away would be a good idea.

Something that is often overlooked about Id is that Kevin and Adrian together own 60% of the company. They are artists, and most definitely do not "get" free software.

What Carmack alludes to about the possibility of a hybrid model with free code and proprietary art I have found very interesting: AFAIK he never wrote the article he talked about at the beginning, though I'd be delighted to learn I was wrong about that.

[Prometheus]

He said proprietary data, not proprietary art. Data would include art, but also for example map and unit configuration files.

He didn't address what is the really crucial question, which is what about plug-ins? While the GPL allows proprietary data files to coexist with GPL code, the status of plug-ins is ambiguous.

A person might take Wesnoth, replace the (theoretically) GPL maps, art, and units files with proprietary versions, and sell the result, and under generally accepted interpretations retain ownership of the maps, art and unit files.

But the scenario files are another matter. These are clearly plug-ins, dependant on the main program for their purpose and meaning. To what extent must scenario files be GPL? Since the scenario files contain the characters, story are other truly valuable IP, the status of the plug-ins is to me the main strumbling block to the use of Wesnoth in a proprietary game.

[irrevenant]

It's interesting that in Carmack cited OGRE as evidence that Open Source "design by committee" didn't work very well, since OGRE is now one of the great Open Source success stories.

P.S. I disagree with Carmack that the Open Source model doesn't logically extend to art, and the Wesnoth Developers seem to agree with me since all Wesnoth art is GPL.

[mowerpower]

It's interesting that in Carmack cited OGRE as evidence that Open Source "design by committee" didn't work very well, since OGRE is now one of the great Open Source success stories.

P.S. I disagree with Carmack that the Open Source model doesn't logically extend to art, and the Wesnoth Developers seem to agree with me since all Wesnoth art is GPL.

Good comments. Carmack was clearly underestimated OGRE, but before I saw Wesnoth, I thought Carmack was mostly right: free software development could develop game engines, but the quality of the graphics was mostly so poor that it preveneted good game experiences within purely free software except in some odd niches.

As a matter of historical interest, what did Wesnoth do right? Is it just that today more talented artists have cotonned on to FS?

[turin]

I think a lot of it is that Wesnoth isn't a direct clone of some non-free game (though it is inspired by a handful of different games).

[irrevenant]

As a matter of historical interest, what did Wesnoth do right? Is it just that today more talented artists have cotonned on to FS?

One of the key artists (I forget who: Jetryl? Eleazar?) once said that they got involved in Wesnoth because it worked and was 'finished' from version 0.2 or so. Since it was already 'up and running' they felt comfortable getting involved, knowing that Wesnoth wouldn't die like so many ambitious games projects.

It certainly helped that Dave consciously chose the middle ground for Wesnoth - not so simple as to be trivial, not so complex that it'd fail.

Also, the standard Open Source development model is best suited to software with high reusability. The release, tweak, release, tweak cycle would work poorly for something like Half Life where, once you've played the story you're not interested in replaying it.

It's no accident that the most successful Open Source Games have massive replayability: Wesnoth, Nexuiz, FreeCiv etc.

[nnn]

Also, the standard Open Source development model is best suited to software with high reusability. The release, tweak, release, tweak cycle would work poorly for something like Half Life where, once you've played the story you're not interested in replaying it.

but how comes we have alot campaings in wesnoth?

[AI]

Maybe because it's not too difficult to make them? (just a lot of work)
Where HL has one story that's finished when you finish it, wesnoth has tons and you can make easily make your own.

[irrevenant]

Maybe because it's not too difficult to make them? (just a lot of work)
Where HL has one story that's finished when you finish it, wesnoth has tons and you can make easily make your own.

Bingo. One person can make a simple Wesnoth campaign in a day. A complex one could probably be done in a couple of weeks, full time. It took a sizeable team working for a couple of years to create the storyline content for Half-Life.

This is, in part, due to the difference between a game and a mod. Campaigns are essentially mods, and mods can draw not only on the engine, but also existing game data. Campaigns like "Eastern Invasion", "Rise of Wesnoth" and "Descent into Darkness" make heavy use of existing terrains and unit art.

Which is a good point: easily modable games are better suited to Open Source development, because modability extends the replayability of a game.

It's also why I argue that the future of Open Source gaming lies (at least partially) in procedural content. Open Source projects don't have the resources that commercial companies do. Making it easier to create content levels the playing field.

For example, imagine a program to generate base graphics for a Wesnoth sprite. You state height (Goblin, Dwarf, Human(short, medium & tall), Troll etc.), armour, weapon etc. and can set parameters like skin colour, armour, weapons etc. The idea has merit, yes? Imagine that it could also generate sprites for different facings and animations. How much time and effort would that save, even if it required manual polishing? (Note: Wesnoth working as it does, this could probably only be done by hand-crafting the individual base frames and overlays rather than algorithmically). It wouldn't replace a skilled artist, of course, but it could make their lives a lot easier. And that goes double for the less skilled artists amongst us...

[Fani]

He said proprietary data, not proprietary art. Data would include art, but also for example map and unit configuration files.

He didn't address what is the really crucial question, which is what about plug-ins? While the GPL allows proprietary data files to coexist with GPL code, the status of plug-ins is ambiguous.

A person might take Wesnoth, replace the (theoretically) GPL maps, art, and units files with proprietary versions, and sell the result, and under generally accepted interpretations retain ownership of the maps, art and unit files.

But the scenario files are another matter. These are clearly plug-ins, dependant on the main program for their purpose and meaning. To what extent must scenario files be GPL? Since the scenario files contain the characters, story are other truly valuable IP, the status of the plug-ins is to me the main strumbling block to the use of Wesnoth in a proprietary game.

Thats right yo, me absolutely agrees with you dude!

[irrevenant]

It has been suggested to me via PM that this thread may be worth preserving, rather than letting it fall victim to the standard Off-Topic Forum nukage.

Thoughts? If the powers that be think it's a good idea to preserve this thread, shall we just lock it vs protect somehow or move it somewhere else? If so, where?

Thanks.

[Mist]

If you think it's worth preserving make it sticky. Stickies and announcments are exempt from pruning.

[AI]

Which forums are pruned? Offtopic makes sense, but most other ones you probably want to preserve.

[turin]

Just move it to Game Development, which isn't pruned.

[irrevenant]

Just move it to Game Development, which isn't pruned.

'k.