GPL for free software users that want to create an open source game. Why not have a dual licensed model in aseprite with a popup on first start? I for myself chose to have for my projects a dual licensing model that does not imply the "forbid to distribute" rule like in your EULA (that is kind of the central point in the discussion of the shitstorming people right now). But I think there's another way around the licensing problem that others are speaking of. To somewhat kind of can understand that we (speaking of Open Source developers that try to establish a project for a living) need to pay the bills. I hope both the EULA and GPL versions both thrive and grow it's not like there isn't room enough for them both. The second best time is now."Īnyhoo, it's nice to see a project grow from humble beginnings, and it's not like the Open Source splinters will vanish. "The best time to plant a tree is twenty five years ago. It's better to sort out sooner and with as much collaboration as possible, and there are things we cannot imagine anyone caring about that can unexpectedly- unexpectably- turn into huge stumbling blocks. The more you prepare for it, the less chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. #Aseprite reddit license#License management for any open-source project is not some tepid swimming pool to dip your toe into, it is a howling acid waterfall that drops you off a cliff and sucks you under. In any case, if you ask me (and nobody did), the only real misstep here was not mentioning that the license would be changing some time in advance. All I really do here is report issues, make suggestions, and try to improve the docs. In this case, I trust to not go full-Ebaum's on this one (ha ha how is that for a dated reference? :v ), but I can completely appreciate how others would not be so generous. But their reactions can be quite extreme in less-graceful instances (n.b.: Nobody in this case, that I've seen, has been so awful, just for the record).ĭevelopers, especially hobbyist developers, on the other hand, usually ( not always!) just want to try to keep the scope of a growing project under control and to maybe try and capitalize on their efforts a little better, and in these cases, it comes down the attitude of the project administrators. The vast majority of users never notice- when was the last time anyone actually read their software licensing agreement? To the end? (If you raised your hand, I admit that I am impressed.) They have a right to be paranoid since property theft is a crime perpetrated by gigantic multinationals and super-smalltimers alike. Some others may resent the very thought of an open source franchise moving away from the movement, even slightly, without having even the slightest investment in that product to begin with. The nature of Open Source projects can create a sense of security that only sometimes really exists. Users feel as though something of theirs is being stolen from them- if they've also contributed to the project, they may feel this way with good reason. And because the thing called "intellectual property" is such a racid topic among enthusiasts, even the slightest whisper of it can trigger an overblown, paranoid reaction. It's a rare thing that a developer also enjoys disassembling the fine, exploitive nuance of copyright law at all, let alone at the outset of a personal-project-cum-open-source-product. But that's the sort of development base it has: keeners. Keeners add their bit, it gets rolled together, and turns into something more than it might have been otherwise. You know, I can appreciate how these shitstorms get going? Developers start these projects as labours of love, and throw some boilerplate license on it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |