Distributing games made with BFW engine commercially?

[CresCoJeff]

Hey all,

I was wondering if it is possible to distribute games [not just add-on campaigns, but complete unique games] made using the BFW campaign creation engine commercially, and independent of Wesnoth site/add-on server? I've been looking for a turn-based strategy game creation engine and the utilities offered by BFW with WML look very inviting.

Thanks,

JC

[Zarel]

It's possible to distribute Wesnoth engine games commercially, i.e. sell them, but with one major caveat: It has to be GPL-licensed (i.e. open-source). In other words, you can sell your game, but you have to publish its source code, too, and you can't stop someone else from recompiling your game and giving it away for free.

One thing you might be able to get away with is to make your core engine open-source, but release your campaigns and multiplayer eras as proprietary. This relies on nitpicky interpretations of the GPL, so I'm not a lawyer etc.

[Aethaeryn]

One thing you might be able to get away with is to make your core engine open-source, but release your campaigns and multiplayer eras as proprietary. This relies on nitpicky interpretations of the GPL, so I'm not a lawyer etc.

The art and music, too. It would be difficult to have someone release the exact same game if it looked and sounded differently. Of course, you'd then forfeit the best part of Wesnoth: its massive library of quality art and music that's all GPL.

[Zarel]

The art and music, too. It would be difficult to have someone release the exact same game if it looked and sounded differently. Of course, you'd then forfeit the best part of Wesnoth: its massive library of quality art and music that's all GPL.

See, it all depends on your interpretation of the GPL. As far as I know, the GPL doesn't infect, I mean affect data, but only the code.

[CresCoJeff]

There's another question-- can the existing media from Wesnoth's libraries be used in an independently commercial game provided said game's source code [and media I guess] were made available to the public for free in accordance with the GPL? What if another unrelated engine was used to create the game but Wesnoth media was included in said game- would the same GPL curse follow it? I'm just wondering how the GPL handles elements such as media when considered separately from the game/engine from which it is taken. Copyright infringement issues are a b@#* for teams without artists, hehe.

Thanks for the info,

JC

[Zarel]

Yes, you can do whatever you want with anything in Wesnoth provided you release the source code to everything you do. My interpretation is that you don't have to do even that, especially since the GPL is mostly unenforceable over art/media (which was the problem the CC licenses were supposed to solve in the first place), so you could use a proprietary engine, too.

Again, not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.

[Aethaeryn]

Yes, you can do whatever you want with anything in Wesnoth provided you release the source code to everything you do. My interpretation is that you don't have to do even that, especially since the GPL is mostly unenforceable over art/media (which was the problem the CC licenses were supposed to solve in the first place), so you could use a proprietary engine, too.

Again, not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.

Sounds like you have a bit of a CC slant...

CresCoJeff: Maybe you should wait until someone comes along more certain?

[Zarel]

Or, as a lawyer would say, go ask a lawyer.

[CresCoJeff]

Sounds like you have a bit of a CC slant...

CresCoJeff: Maybe you should wait until someone comes along more certain?

Lol, well it'll be awhile before I'm in any such position anyway; I'm shopping around for dev. tools and was intrigued by BFW. Even if I don't use it to make games I'm really glad I found it- it's awesome on its own!

I've heard of some pretty interesting ways to skirt the gpl-- I even knew a guy once who purposefully put debug resistant game-crashers in his source code before posting it in the hopes that others would give up if they ever attempted to copy his game. He would have corrupted his media files too except that they were all taken from other gpl sources, hehe.

[z9484]

[rant] You may want to reconsider your PR department, because in three posts it seems like your goal is to mooch off the work of others, and give back the very least amount possible. Not the best company mission statement. [/rant]

Here is a quote from the GPLv2 Section 2.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

IANAL but I would say media is a part of the program and therefore programs that use them must be GPL as well. If the art was LGPL it would be okay, but this is not the case.

I don't see anything that would prevent you from selling campaigns, scenarios or eras as long as you use only your own WML (to be safe unit code as well), graphics and music. Because then it could be reasonably seen as independent.

[Aethaeryn]

I don't see anything that would prevent you from selling campaigns, scenarios or eras as long as you use only your own WML (to be safe unit code as well), graphics and music. Because then it could be reasonably seen as independent.

On the other hand, something that is GPL can be sold.

[CresCoJeff]

[rant] You may want to reconsider your PR department, because in three posts it seems like your goal is to mooch off the work of others, and give back the very least amount possible. Not the best company mission statement. [/rant]

Whoa, hang on now I'm only trying to clear up my confusion over some legal matters. I'm not a spriter and I don't intend to code my own engine if there is an existing one I could use legally, so knowing whether or not I can call something made with the BFW engine that might incorporate even just 1 or 2 trees I liked from the game's media sufficiently 'my own' enough to sell is important. I certainly do not intend to mooch off of others, I merely want to understand the availability of resources.

There is a difference between making use of an engine coded or media created by someone else and 'mooching' off of them- that difference lies in the creativity of your finished product. A game, rather like the human mind and many other macro-systems relying on countless micro-systems, is an emergent product comprised of countless individual interdependent moving parts. If a game is made well and with enough love the emergent product will be unique no matter how similar its parts may be to sister games [think identical twins raised apart]. Too many people waste time trying to reinvent the wheel at every turn; personally I would rather buy a game that had the same art style as one I already owned but was very well made than a slipshod product that blew its budget trying to create never before seen media. If I made a paint-by-numbers copy of the Mona Lisa I would not expect to be able to sell it as my own painting-- if I took a snapshot of the Mona Lisa, shrunk it down and put it on a playing card to be used in a Da Vinci themed card battler I would expect to be able to sell the cards for the game. She's still the Mona Lisa in each case, but is she bringing those who behold her the same experience both times? I think not. Would it be a shame if for legal reasons I had to draw my own version of the Mona Lisa in Paint? You better believe it, lol.

Anyhoo, it seems there is some confusion here over the finer points of the GPL so I think I'll bide my time...

[Aethaeryn]

Whoa, hang on now I'm only trying to clear up my confusion over some legal matters. I'm not a spriter and I don't intend to code my own engine if there is an existing one I could use legally, so knowing whether or not I can call something made with the BFW engine that might incorporate even just 1 or 2 trees I liked from the game's media sufficiently 'my own' enough to sell is important. I certainly do not intend to mooch off of others, I merely want to understand the availability of resources.

Still, considering years of work has gone into the art and years of work into the engine, it doesn't look favorably on your work effort that you're going to borrow probably 80% to 90% of the actual difficult-to-make things in the game and sell a product that basically amounts to a really fancy add-on. While your Mona Lisa analogy makes sense, it does so because a painting and a card game are totally different things. Taking a game's resources and reusing much of it for a game of the same genre seems like poor etiquette, even if the GPL would permit it. What if Age of Empires II was under the GPL, and I reused the basic engine and the art to make an Era of Nations 2 that played very similarly, but might have some new art, different stats of the units, slight tweaks to the code, and different campaigns?

[CresCoJeff]

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from when you put it like that. I suppose the issue boils down to whether games are being created using the engine and resources provided in a game creation suite like RPG Maker 2003 or if they are made using the engine and resources of an existing game that happens to support new creations. In both cases most games will have a pretty similar look and feel, but in the latter case the resources are coming from a source not primarily designed for new game creation. Conceptually the differences are fuzzy at best, but the matter of simple etiquette is clearer when considering the intent of the people behind Wesnoth vs. RPGM 2k3 and the community surrounding each.

Anyway, all of this was hypothetical to begin with. I haven't created anything yet and I never seriously intended to make anything commercial with Wesnoth; this post was strictly for my edification. Before beginning a commercial project with a resource not explicitly designed to do just that I would be certain to find out how the community felt about the idea... now I have an answer regarding Wesnoth

[Aethaeryn]

Hmm, I can see where you're coming from when you put it like that. I suppose the issue boils down to whether games are being created using the engine and resources provided in a game creation suite like RPG Maker 2003 or if they are made using the engine and resources of an existing game that happens to support new creations. In both cases most games will have a pretty similar look and feel, but in the latter case the resources are coming from a source not primarily designed for new game creation. Conceptually the differences are fuzzy at best, but the matter of simple etiquette is clearer when considering the intent of the people behind Wesnoth vs. RPGM 2k3 and the community surrounding each.

Anyway, all of this was hypothetical to begin with. I haven't created anything yet and I never seriously intended to make anything commercial with Wesnoth; this post was strictly for my edification. Before beginning a commercial project with a resource not explicitly designed to do just that I would be certain to find out how the community felt about the idea... now I have an answer regarding Wesnoth

Well, Wesnoth can be seen as a game engine to an extent, considering that it has many high-quality add-ons that can be downloaded via a central add-ons server. The main issue is that these add-ons are licensed under the GPL when they are added to the server, and they are all free-of-charge. If one were to make a pay-to-download mod that would do little more than an add-on (and may even do less than an add-on, especially when most eras have their own unique sprite arts), it wouldn't be well-received in the community where so many add-ons are already free. It would have to be pretty damn good (especially in the art department) to merit someone having to pay for it. (Keep in mind that there are expectations: if people expect something to be free, they'll not like it if it's not free.) If you want to make a commercial fork of Wesnoth, it isn't going to be well-received by the Wesnoth community unless it has some major improvements to Wesnoth and doesn't really look like it... or at least, that's my two cents. Three people does not make the consensus of the community, especially since no developers have replied to this thread.

In my opinion, one of the biggest strengths of Wesnoth is the add-ons. On one hand, the WML syntax and the centralized server makes it easy for content creators to get their content to a decent-sized audience. On the other hand, the presence of some quality add-ons greatly extends the playable life of Wesnoth. Wesnoth has been very friendly to the (free and GPL) add-ons, and in turn they improve the strength of the game. For instance, most of the campaigns included in the mainline game started as add-ons.

It's interesting that you mention RPG Maker because Wesnoth's engine has successfully been used to make RPGs (all free, and on the add-on server): Brotherhood of Light and Wesband are two of the fanciest examples.