I'm not sure which license should I choose for my game.

My assumptions are:

• I don't want you to sell it. (I won't sell it too so..)
• You can use things like adf.ly etc
• You can share it around web, as long you give credits to game's author
• For now I won't post my code to public (maybe in future*)
• There are non secured .bmp files, you're free to edit them, share your work etc, as long you also give credits to game's author
• There are non secured .ogg files, used for BG music etc, you can't edit them, but you can (and should) share them with my game's .exe file.

I'm author of source code, .bmps and .oggs ofc..

Any tips?

Sounds like you'll want to distribute different portions of your game under different licensing schemes, since you have such vastly different ideas going on. If you do so, you may need to distribute your game in pieces (i.e. have application with XYZ license distributed separately from the graphics which are under the ABC license) in order to remain compliant with the licensing terms, and to avoid ambiguities in the licensing, what is and isn't covered by each license, etc.

It sounds like one of the Creative Commons licenses might be for you, though. You can add/remove different terms, such as Share-Alike (which means you can distribute but not sell) and the "BY" clause (where authors must be given credit). There is also a clause that allows sharing, but disallows editing/derivatives. I know CC licenses cover art and music and such, but I do not know about software (I've never heard of it being applied to software, either).

Your app and its code can be distributed under different licenses. For example, you could have a commercial license for the compiled application, but the code under an MIT or BSD license.

Best option to me in this particular case would be to craft your own license from scratch, although that can be a minefield... so you might just want to use different licensing schemes for different portions of your game.

_________________
What most people don't understand about "enlightenment" is that it is not an end-goal; but where you find yourself just before taking a new "first step."

Thanks for your reply. I'm going to re-think my assumptions then. And sorry for wrong forums, I've got no idea why I posted it in "C and C++ Game Programming" (probably coz of too many tabs opened in my browser..)

Having different parts under different licenses seems like a good option to me as well. You do get the additional problem of combining different parts with different licenses though.

Not allowing selling at all is a tough one afaik; even GL allows selling, as long as you also provide the source (eg covering costs for the medium and for building a binary). BSD/MIT will allow it even easier.
Perhaps a creative commons license gives you a solution, although it is intended for artwork, so I don't know how well it fits.

As for making your own license, I would not dare doing that without a lawyer, there are just too many things that can go wrong. Besides we have too many licenses already ;)

In fact, if you really want an informed choice, it might be a good idea to consult a lawyer for picking a license, licensing is a very big and dense mine field.

_________________
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT, dev blog, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net

+1

It may or may not be worth it to craft your own license, due to this fact. You'll need to find a lawyer who specializes in this field of law, and expect to pay at least a few hundred USD an hour...

_________________
What most people don't understand about "enlightenment" is that it is not an end-goal; but where you find yourself just before taking a new "first step."

Thanks for your replies, I really appreciate that. I dont want to write my new license, I'm too poor for laywer and I'm not into law-things at all. So I was thinking a bit about my problem and... my new assumptions are:

• I dont want to publish source code yet(maybe in future)
• You can do whatever you want with files included in package* as long you remember to give credits to author
• You can sell your modified versions etc, but not the native one

I used Allegro 4.2 and Audiere 1.9.4 libs during making my app. Those are under licences: Giftware (Allegro) and LGPL (Audiere).
Also there is audio file from http://looperman.com (LINK) which is royalty free.

Any suggestions?

For your binary, you might be best-served by the X11 license. Here's a template:



Note that, given the verbiage of this license, source code falls under the "umbrella" of the license -- but there is no compulsory requirement to include such. When/if you release the source, you can release that under the X11 license as well.

_________________
What most people don't understand about "enlightenment" is that it is not an end-goal; but where you find yourself just before taking a new "first step."

(probably) Last question. If I decide to go for GNU GPL v3.0 does it applies only to source and binary file or for whole package (that includes source, executable, image and sound files used by my app) ?

example files package:


Also should I include licenses of libs that I used? (as I wrote ealier those are Allegro and Audiere)

Licensing is very easy and very difficult at the same time.

The easy part is this:
Each file has a license. It can be a different license for each file (not recommended, but theoretically possible).

For packages that already have a license, you don't have a choice (unless its license says otherwise, but that never happens). For your own files, you have free choice. You have to make clear which license applies to which file.

Thus the answer to is, 'you decide for your files'. However there is a catch, read below.

The difficult part here is this:
Once you made a choice, every further question is license-driven.

Basically, you have to obey all rules stated by all licenses that you use (for the files to which the license applies).
If it is required by a license, you have no choice. If it is forbidden by a license, the answer is "no". If it is allowed by all licenses involved, you can decide either way.

So the answer to is 'check their license'.

However, you are allowed to do more than what the license demands.
As a matter of respect for other software authors, I'd add each 3rd-party library verbatim in its own directory separately from my own code, give them credits and state the originating site in the README file, even if its license doesn't require it.

Giving a library its own directory has some other nice properties as well. You probably don't change that part, so keeping it separate reduces clutter in your own code. Also, for stating which license applies to which files, a separate directory makes life a lot easier. Also, updating to a newer version of those libraries is easier.

_________________
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT, dev blog, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net

So, what If I just release a file without any license? Does it matter? Is it big deal? Since I'm just "starting" programmer. (I think I can't call half year exp. more than "starting")

A file without a license means you own it, making it non-usable for anybody, as you may later change the conditions that you attach to it.
See also http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/0 ... cense.html

_________________
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT, dev blog, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net

Thanks Alberth! It will help me a lot.

btw. Is that joke or serious license?
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

It probably started as a joke, but it is a serious license, very useful to state you put something in the public domain, since some countries don't recognize that term legally. The WTFPL explicitly states the licensing conditions (namely do with it whatever you like), which is legally much more clear.

Technically, by attaching a WTFPL to it, you don't put it in the public domain (since public domain implies it has no license), but since you have the same rights in Western countries, people don't mind :p

_________________
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT, dev blog, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net

Am I forced to public my source code when I decide to go for BSD license for my app?

Sorry for multiple and similar questions all the time, but I'm seriously not into law-things, and when I read most of licenses it's like "i are potato" for me:S

you are not forced to give away your source if you publish something under bsd license, but as long as your customers keep the license information in, they can do whatever they like with your software, including sell, reverse engineer, modify and so on

_________________
My projects: Gamvas Web - html5 canvas game framework| sge2d - C/C++ 2D SDL game framework

So I will probably go for BSD license, thanks for all replies and your time

Note that there are variations of the BSD license (calling it "BSD license" is ambiguous -- which BSD license do you mean? etc.). There are three main varieties:

Original BSD License: Not compatible with GPL, not approved by OSI.

New BSD License (aka. "Modified BSD License"): OSI-approved, GPL compatible. This seems to be the best choice given your circumstances (I use it myself, and have much the same style of distribution as you are on now). It is very nearly identical to the X11 license as far as terms go.

Simplified BSD License ("FreeBSD License"): Same as the New/Modified BSD License, except the "do not use my name to endorse your derivative product" is omitted.

See the terms of each variation on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

_________________
What most people don't understand about "enlightenment" is that it is not an end-goal; but where you find yourself just before taking a new "first step."