6 ms·
I guess I can, but I am not a lawyer and I don't really want to go on date with Gaben and his lawyers (date with Gabe, gooseman and Jess is ok for me), but if y
by solcloud 2y ago
I guess I can, but I am not a lawyer and I don't really want to go on date with Gaben and his lawyers (date with Gabe, gooseman and Jess is ok for me), but if you have any suggestions please share
- solcloud 2y agosource code is all written from scratch and it is free for anybody
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y agoThat’s not a valid license. Without a file or statement in the repository, I guess it’s a proprietary piece of software that people cannot legally fork.
- droideqa 2y agoIt is public domain if there is no license.
- ClassyJacket 2y agoThe opposite is true. Even if you publish the source, if you don't add a licence, you still have full copyright and all rights to it.
- recursive 2y agoThat is not true.
- droideqa 2y agoI checked; you are right.
- account42 2y agoActully, the act of putting it on GitHub might be considered an implied license to clone and fork the project since those are normal GitHub functions. Still, an explicit open source license that also makes sure to grant those rights outside of GitHub would be better.
- sqeaky 2y agoSo this code is free!? So I can take it and reuse it exactly as is and claim it's my own and sell it on Steam for $60 a pop? So I can take it and use your name that is surely somewhere in the code and fill it with swastikas and hate speech and say that this represents your views? Or more reasonably since I don't see a license this is copy written reserving All Rights and anything said here is just a trap you're just waiting for me to do something cool with it then hit me with a lawsuit and take my money, right? But more seriously head over to the open source initiative read up on a couple of licenses and pick one. Almost any license will prevent people from using your name but let other people use the code if that's a thing you want. If you just want to protect your name and let people use the code for whatever even making money consider an MIT or BSD Style license. If you want (to protect your name and for) other people to be able to use the code but need to share their changes consider a GPL style license. This will complicate other people making money but doesn't strictly prohibit it. If you don't want (the previous stuff and for) other people to be able to prevent people from selling it you might want to use something like a Creative Commons non-commercial license, I won't be perfect but there are flowcharts you can follow to figure out which license works for you.
- airstrike 2y ago> So I can take it and use your name that is surely somewhere in the code and fill it with swastikas and hate speech and say that this represents your views? That has nothing to do with the game being free. If you dedicate source code to public domain and someone slaps swastikas on it, it doesn't represent OP's views all of a sudden
- sqeaky 2y agoIt was hyperbole, exaggeration for inflated effect, unlikely but within the realm of technically poossible. More likely people just won't use it without a license.
- dankwizard 2y agoYou've never worked in open source and it shows
- kurisufag 2y agothis may be what you're looking for http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
- wyldfire 2y agoDon't use that license, use something similar like MIT, BSD or Apache instead.
- kurisufag 2y agowould you mind pointing out why? those are very dissimilar licenses in the sense that wtfpl is basically a cute way of putting something into the public domain, while MIT et. al. do actually have (albeit minor and reasonable) restrictions on the conduct of people using the code.
- poizan42 2y agoThere is no disclaimer of liability and implied warranty. You may be on the hook for damages if someone uses your code under the WTFPL and there is a bug that causes them to lose money.
- leni536 2y agoYou can use zero-clause BSD[1] or MIT no-attribution[2]. [1] https://opensource.org/license/0bsd https://opensource.org/license/0bsd [2] https://opensource.org/license/mit-0 https://opensource.org/license/mit-0
- dokyun 2y agoWTFPL is a fine license. It's even FSF approved.
- josephcsible 2y agoThe FSF certifies that it's a free software license that's compatible with the GPL, but they recommend against using it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#WTFPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#WTFPL
- gitaarik 2y agoIf you want the code to stay free you better add a free software license, that's what these licenses are made for, to preserve the freedom of the code. Otherwise others can take your code and make it propietary and add their propietary license to it.
- cAtte_ 2y agoeven if you were infringing on Valve's copyrights (which you probably aren't, you're just using one of their trademarks), licensing your project or not wouldn't change that at all. but more importantly, by not including a license file in your repository, you are asking everyone to assume that your project is not licensed, therefore all rights are reserved, therefore it's not actually open-source (a comment on HN is sadly not enough): https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi....
- fragmede 2y agoPlease do. This is your code so you get to decide exactly how free you want it to be, but without a license, it's "source available" which means that people can't do more than look at it and say "that's nice". If you want to let other people actually do something with it, then it needs a license. I can't decide for you which one to choose, but MIT is popular, let's other people take your code as long as they say where it came from. For web projects that you want to remain free, AGPL is a license that says you can use this code, but any changes you make to it also have to be free. It's a tricky topic that this comment is far too short to cover, but it's worth a hour or two of your time to consider as what you think of as okay to with your source won't align with what everyone else might consider to do with your source.
- solcloud 2y agoI want people to contribute to it, to make it better game, with no bugs, better visuals etc., repository also contains assets that was not made me, so I guess only thing I can license is source code written in programming languages that was written only by me, idk, I should be lawyer not programmer :)
- soufron 2y agoIf you need some pro bono legal help for choosing your license and avoisine trouble, just contact me :)
- keyle 2y agoThat is nice of you to offer, but your profile nor this message provide any way of contacting you.
- debugnik 2y agoTrue, but googling soufron brings up a popular lawyer with that last name, whose social media and website use the same handle, and even has a wikipedia page. So I'm assuming he knows he's easy to find.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- keyle 2y agoSounds good, I should rename myself to JackNicholson so you can google my authenticity and take it at face value.
- debugnik 2y agoUnlike linking to Nicholson's socials from your HN account, which would totally count as proof... We simply aren't discussing how to prove his identity, just how to contact him (or whoever he could be impersonating) when he didn't provide contact info.
- alexander2002 2y agoFor some reason ur wikipedia has so many time references ending in 2015.Is it not maintained any longer or you retired?