0 Favourites

Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

  • Hi all,

    Thinking more along the lines of moneymaking, I think the HTML5 exporter should be close-sourced. The code all went up on SourceForge when the preview went public, but I think it should be taken back off. Here's why:

    As you know we're still winging it as hobbyists but we like where this is going and would love it if we could go full time and make some money off it. That's good for the community too, because it means we can work fulltime on improving Construct 2, rather than the irregular patches everyone's used to.

    Corporations and businesses are a really good place to go to make money - they have lots of it and regularly license software site-wide anyway. The problem with fully open source software is it makes it impossible to sell to businesses. Even if we tried to charge, the open source licenses mean they could just get one of their employees to spend half an hour building it themselves, then they've got a copy they can legally use.

    If we close-source the HTML5 exporter, we can make sales to businesses. If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah. (Obviously the code as it is now is up there but it's still in alpha stage, and after a few months of development we'd be way ahead anyway.)

    The editor can stay open source GPL - there's no need to close source it - but without any exporters it's just an empty shell that does nothing. However, that leaves the door open to more third-party exporters that could also be free, so there's still all the main advantages of open source. So in future there could also be a totally-free edition if somebody made another free exporter. It's only the HTML5 exporter component which would be closed source.

    How does this sound? IMO, it's a win for everyone. You get a better product and we get to make some money.

    Please don't go round saying we are definitely going to go closed source and start charging money! This is just an idea under consideration right now. Let me know what you think.

  • It's good idea to get some of Cons2 closed source and still be clean when it comes to CT issues.

  • Sounds fine to me, especially if it helps you guys to be supported by your efforts so that you're able to work full time on construct.

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I voted yes. You guys will obviously need to make money if this is to have any future at all.

  • It's good idea to get some of Cons2 closed source and still be clean when it comes to CT issues.

    What CT issues? And what difference would being closed source make to that??

  • Back in time there was some legal actions threaten from CT about re-use of their coding ideas (ACE for instance).

  • [quote:d51dkhew]If we close-source the HTML5 exporter, we can make sales to businesses. If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah.

    are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?

  • Can't vote because of my skin colour, but i vote yes. Nothing bad could come from you working full time on construct.

  • [quote:28co4kyd]are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?

    There would be no source.

    I think HTML5 would be a good choice, if that's the route you want to go.

    There are a lot of pros, and cons.... obviously.

    But , in the end its your choice. I think all we can do is point out those advantages / disadvantages.

  • [quote:2lvcrfkl]There would be no source.

    I was asking whether we would also have to pay for the HTML exporter or just for the source. Rereading Ashley's post, I think he was referring to the source.

  • are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?

    The source code would be closed-source (proprietary). The licenses refer to how the released exporter is given away, not the source code itself, which is private to us.

    Back in time there was some legal actions threaten from CT about re-use of their coding ideas (ACE for instance)

    I don't believe there's any issue here, that all appears to have blown over. Besides, ideas aren't copyrightable - try putting IE9 and Chrome side by side.

  • Question:

    How is this going to affect plugs, since they have to be written for each exporter?

  • I don't see any reason this will affect plugins. What are you worried about?

  • Go for it, then with some of the money....build me a Linux native GUI!

  • I don't see any reason this will affect plugins. What are you worried about?

    Might slow development from outside devs.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)