Licensing your games

[Koveras]

The question to fellow developers who already released some games: do you publish your games reserving all copyright rights or under some specific license?

You see, I've been studying the topic recently (since I have a reason to believe that my first game will be released this year) and I don't like the idea of copyright at all. -__- I would like to publish my game under a permissive license that allows distribution, quoting, screenshots, etc. My first thought was CC but after reading its FAQ I have encountered a statement that its is not recommended for software at least three times and it doesn't mention video games at all. However, when I look at GNU (L)GPL, it is even less appropriate for games. I haven't looked at other licenses yet because they all seem either repetitive or too specialized for me...

So basically, what license would you recommend to publish games under? ^^

[Jake]

You see, I've been studying the topic recently (since I have a reason to believe that my first game will be released this year) and I don't like the idea of copyright at all.

Normally I would say that if you don't like copyright at all, then by all means release into the public domain, which means you forfeit copyright and no longer have anything to do with it at all. Except it seems you live in Germany, and IIRC there are provisions in German copyright law that you - as the creator of a creative work - cannot give up certain moral rights protected under copyright law. So if you don't want anything to do with copyright and live in Germany, your best bets are to not create anything or to move country.

Just be aware that this means anyone can do anything they like to your game, including passing it off as their own work. You lose all rights to Copyright is the legal protection that guarantees you recognition for your work, and it's a matter of fact that all licenses - permissive (BSD) or pretend-permissive (GPL) or overtly-restrictive (typical software EULA) - are built on copyright law.

I would like to publish my game under a permissive license that allows distribution, quoting, screenshots, etc.

The most obvious license that comes to mind is the three-clause BSD license, or MIT license (which are basically the same). This provides that you are recognised for your work and retain copyright, cannot be held responsible for anything bad that happens through the use of the software, cannot be used to endorse other things, but other than that the user is free to do whatever, however they like with or to the software. This is the license that Ren'Py's distributed under, for example.


I would add that - while I'm not sure of the precise legal ramifications - it's generally accepted that if software doesn't ship with a license at all, then it's considered to be under a 'reasonable assumption' license - that is, you can do things which one would reasonably assume would be permitted, including screenshots and quoting and distribution (if you don't charge for it). And this is in fact the 'license' that most people release their games under, because very few people bother to actually include a license with their distributions.

[Koveras]

Normally I would say that if you don't like copyright at all, then by all means release into the public domain, which means you forfeit copyright and no longer have anything to do with it at all. Except it seems you live in Germany, and IIRC there are provisions in German copyright law that you - as the creator of a creative work - cannot give up certain moral rights protected under copyright law. So if you don't want anything to do with copyright and live in Germany, your best bets are to not create anything or to move country.

Just be aware that this means anyone can do anything they like to your game, including passing it off as their own work. You lose all rights to Copyright is the legal protection that guarantees you recognition for your work, and it's a matter of fact that all licenses - permissive (BSD) or pretend-permissive (GPL) or overtly-restrictive (typical software EULA) - are built on copyright law.

Just because I don't like copyright doesn't make me a copyleft extremist by default. If I wanted to release my game to public domain, I wouldn't have started looking into the whole licensing business in the first place. ^_^

The most obvious license that comes to mind is the three-clause BSD license, or MIT license (which are basically the same). This provides that you are recognised for your work and retain copyright, cannot be held responsible for anything bad that happens through the use of the software, cannot be used to endorse other things, but other than that the user is free to do whatever, however they like with or to the software. This is the license that Ren'Py's distributed under, for example.

Thank you for the advice... I've checked out the BSD licenses but got confused by this clauses thing: what's the difference between four-, three-, and two-clause BSD?

I would add that - while I'm not sure of the precise legal ramifications - it's generally accepted that if software doesn't ship with a license at all, then it's considered to be under a 'reasonable assumption' license - that is, you can do things which one would reasonably assume would be permitted, including screenshots and quoting and distribution (if you don't charge for it). And this is in fact the 'license' that most people release their games under, because very few people bother to actually include a license with their distributions.

Heh, I've never considered not including any licensing information in my games, to be honest. -__- I guess I've been working in the SW developing business for too long now.

[killdream]

But a game is, to begin with, a software o.o
I use GPLv3 for my games and MIT licence (usually) for my APIs. MIT licence is really permissive, though. You allow anyone to do whatever they want with your game/software/whatever, they just need to maintain the copyright notice.

GPL is less permissive than MIT, as you don't allow peoples charging for your game or so.

CC... i saw some games that uses it. I don't see why not use it, though. A game is a creative work, after all.

[chunderbunny]

GPL is less permissive than MIT, as you don't allow peoples charging for your game or so.

I think you might be mistaken here, there is nothing to stop people from charging for GPL software.

The main difference between the GPL and BSD/MIT licences is that the GPL does not allow the software to be combined with non-GPL software. (Loosely speaking)

[Koveras]

But a game is, to begin with, a software o.o

A game is a multidisciplinary work, as it combines programming, drawing art, writing, and music. A pure software, for which GPL has been optimized, is a machine code that solves a set of problems, so while it does include the so-called "art of programming", it basically consists of the source code and a particular build. To illustrate it: if I program an instant messenger and someone takes a screenshot of it or rips out the help files, I couldn't care less about what happens to those, since it's the functionality that matters. The games go beyond simple functionality, since other things make them aesthetically appealing. So while I wouldn't care if a screenshot of my messenger were used in a guro fanart, I almost certainly would if it were my favorite female character from a game I released. ^^;

I use GPLv3 for my games and MIT licence (usually) for my APIs. MIT licence is really permissive, though. You allow anyone to do whatever they want with your game/software/whatever, they just need to maintain the copyright notice.

GPL is less permissive than MIT, as you don't allow peoples charging for your game or so.

I took a look at MIT license, too, but I got scared off, but I don't remember by what part exactly. ^^

[Jake]

The main difference between the GPL and BSD/MIT licences is that the GPL does not allow the software to be combined with non-GPL software. (Loosely speaking)

It depends which version of the GPL you're talking about, as well. Basically, the difference as I understand it is this:

- The BSD/MIT license exists so you can say "here's my thing, do what you want with it, just remember I made it".
- The GPL v2 exists so you can say "here's my thing, here's the source, you can do what you want with it, just remember I made it and never distribute it under a different license"
- The GPL v3 exists to further Richard Stallman's political agenda, which you may or may not agree with.

As to the different versions of the BSD license, there used to be a four-clause version which insisted that the program advertise to the user who was responsible for creating it, but this was widely considered to be pretty annoying and to get in the way of functionality, so that clause was removed to leave us with the three-clause version which is in common use today. The MIT license is functionally similar to the modern three-clause BSD license.

But then, if you want to control things like derivative works of your program containing pictures or text you don't personally agree with, then you're going to have to go for a more-restrictive and probably-custom license anyway.

[Inu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_What_Th ... ic_License

Modify it to your needs. Rename it.

[Koveras]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_What_Th ... ic_License

Modify it to your needs. Rename it.

That's would be... slightly overboard. But thanks for the suggestion, I came across many other fun licenses... my favorite atm is Beerware.

[KomiTsuku]

I don't like to have things copyrighted other than a very vague license of attribution or MIT license. I've always been of the opinion that if they are changing or using it, even in some negative way, then people will be interested in the original, just to see what started everything.

You could write your own, but that is an absolute pain in the arse and highly not recommended.

[pinkmouse]

Why not just release your game "normally" and then release any material you want to share separately under a CC license? If you upload them to a public archive then you could put a note in your game help file telling them where to look.

In practice the coding is sufficiently game-specific that it's not much use as a whole, and clever coding tends to get shared on the forums anyway as a "help the newbie" community thing.

If anyone is sufficiently wowed by your story that they want to create a fanwork (I should be so lucky!) or a sequel then they're undoubtedly going to contact you anyway. That's how collaborations are born.