I noticed in the other threads Ash said they stopped committing code for the time being.
My thought is, what if you could get paid by the hour, or project?
Say for example you made an exe exporter, and decided you would release the code after you received enough compensation for your time, or what you felt that project was worth.
This should still work with the fundry setup, and should still work with gpl.
You could do this a couple different ways as well.
One way would be to split the sum up, and when some one "donates" a set amount they would get a working version of the exe,plug, exporter, etc, then once the quota is filled release the code for everyone.
It probably wouldn't work with every little upgrade, but there's no reason you couldn't group them either.
Reading the other threads, I think Ash and the guys want to earn enough from this so they can work on it full time, without having to get other jobs when they leave uni. I don't see how this could support them in that way (I may be mistaken though!).
Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.
It will likely never provide a steady reliable income, meaning you would probably have to balance jobs/sources of incomes. This will detract from the overall quality of the product, and variety of offered features.
And if we don't get enough donations, we just keep it closed source? But then we're not making any money and can't afford to work on it!
Doesn't sound like a solid plan I'm afraid - it really defeats the point of open source. It's meant to be free code, not code people have to pay to unlock.
Versus assuming you would receive enough from the other closed source method?
Granted you would have to set up C2 to run regardless of what features the individual has installed, but given the nature of how plugins work with exporters you pretty much have to do that anyways ...to a point.
Also the gpl just states that when you distribute it only as a whole you must provide the source.
[quote:1pehaf2w]These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Although some parts may be arguable as separate, image editor, animator etc.
Well at least in C0.xx...
Keep in mind you could also start the work as soon as you have enough money committed, instead of making it, and waiting for it to pay off.
While you wouldn't see a big income initially, but with all the little things like separate plugins for each exporter, there is a potential to make even more than selling it as a whole.
I will say this, it would be market driven at least. You will know what people are wanting from what they are buying.
It would be nice if someone forked the code and created a competing GPLed project, though that would require someone with some skill and dedication towards it and considering this is a niche project there isn't much of a chance of that happening.
In any case, the code that has been released is GPL and always will be GPL. The developers can't take that back, the GPL was specifically designed in order to prevent such a thing from occurring. They can create their own fork with all the code which they explicitly own and relicense it but that doesn't have any effect on the previously available code.
Hello! I'm new to these forums, but here's my opinion about the licensing issues.
Why not split Construct 2's development in 2:
1. OSE (Open-source Edition) ? contains the main components and the exporter thingy, but updates for it arrive months after the CSE. Forum help support provided. FLOSS and free of charge. C2 could be modular architecture-based (since I'm not a programmer at all, it could already be). Suitable only for non-commercial projects. A mention of C2 as the engine used in making the commercial game is mandatory (for example, through a C2 logo info splashscreen shown before the main menu of a game loads).
2. CSE (Closed-source Edition) ? contains everything from the OSE, but is more actively developed and contains the latest patches/updates/hotfixes. Again, forum help support provided. Suitable for commercial for-profit projects. Whether or not a mention of C2 as the engine used in making the commercial game is at the discretion of the game developers.
Also includes special advanced features not present in the OSE (advanced stuff in the HTML5 exporter). It could be modular architecture-based, but contains more plug-is/modules (and/or improved versions of them) in comparison to the OSE.
Price adjusted per license and 2-3 years of free support and free updates. Price range USD $25-80. Also, additional modules/plug-ins for $5-10 could also be available for the CSE.
The license allows unlimited usage of the CSE edition on an unlimited number of PCs (installs), but after those 2-3 years of free advanced support + updates for the CSE users, they should buy the newer version if they need the newer versions, again with 2-3 years of support and terms similar to those already described.
Maybe something like per user per license unlock keys could be a way to protect (to a good degree) the pirating of the C2 CSE.
Also, both editions should support donations (like now) to keep the devs working on C1 and C2 (aside from the money earned through the CSE).
Do you think that this business model could work?
P.S. Also, maybe a certain % (like 5-10%) of highly commercially successful games could also be placed for the CSE, with a certain $ amount as the defining requirement (like games that gross over USD$ 5000, Construct 2 devs get, for example, 0,1 x 5000 = $500, game devs earn $4500).
P.P.S. In addition, the eventual inclusion of an .EXE exporter and a GNU/Linux GNU for both versions is a must-have to attract more people.
That's interesting, but they would have to come up with a different license for the open sourced part. Gpl restricts selling anything other than the method of conveyance.