search

cpluspluscom / ChessPlusPlus

cplusplus.com Community Project: Modular Chess with support for more types of pieces than traditional Chess
https://cpluspluscom.GitHub.IO/ChessPlusPlus/
35 stars 26 forks source link

License #40

Open LB-- opened 11 years ago

LB-- commented 11 years ago

We need to decide on a license for this code. GitHub requires that a license be in a file titled LICENSE, and by convention we would also have to place the license in all our source files. We also have to account for the licenses of the graphics we're using.

A commit or pull request resolving this should include the text Fixes #40

Thumperrr commented 11 years ago

MIT license?

LB-- commented 11 years ago

Is that compatible with the license for our resources?

Thumperrr commented 11 years ago

SFML is distributed under the zlip/png license. We could distribute under that as well. Boost has their own software license I believe.

EDIT: And I don't know whether or not MIT is compatible with creative commons.

LB-- commented 11 years ago

We're not actually including boost or SFML with our distribution (the submodules are just links), so we don't need to worry about those. If MIT is compatible with creative commons for the images we're using, then it should be fine.

Thumperrr commented 11 years ago

Yeah. I misunderstood what you meant by resources. I'll do some googling.

naraku9333 commented 11 years ago

There could be a problem with the game pieces, The CC BY-NC-ND is the most restrictive version of the creative commons license and says "only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially", I believe LowestOne edited the images.

Thumperrr commented 11 years ago

Worst case scenario we just find different images. We've made it pretty easy to swap out the images if we need to. The chessboard is of our own making. I believe @Lowest0ne made that on his own. I believe it's just the pieces we have to worry about.

LB-- commented 11 years ago

The change with swapping images out easily is still in my fork, in this repo the images are still loaded as though they were a tileset. If you want I can try and isolate just those changes and pull them in.

Lowest0ne commented 10 years ago

I edited the chess piece image, but made the board on my own.

I can spend some time today to try to make some images, though I'm sure they will be sparse ( I mean, modern ).

MIT / CC BY / Zlib, I'm down. I like MIT best, one thing it does provide us with is protection in case the code breaks something on someone's computer. I would imagine Creative Common implies that, but I don't know.

LB-- commented 10 years ago

Oops, didn't realize this issue would close when we merged #56 - we still need to pick a license of our own...

LB-- commented 10 years ago

Someone joined the IRC recently and asked if this was licensed under GPL. We should probably choose a license soon or we'll get more people asking. Personally I vote for putting this into the public domain with unlicense, but I fear many of you would disagree. If you want you can look at this list of the templates GitHub has:

There is also http://choosealicense.com/

If not Public Domain then my second choice is MIT as @Thumperrr suggested.

EDIT: @Lowest0ne, our choice also depends on you since we're using your graphics!

BraydenYates commented 10 years ago

I asked about the license. The GPL v2 is my preference. Lots of you probably won't like it though because it drones on.

jaredready commented 10 years ago

Eh I don't like unlicense. I vote for GPL v2 or MIT

BraydenYates commented 10 years ago

I don't think public domain would be good because someone could make a small change and call the program their own. If we do the MIT someone could modify the source code and make it proprietary. It is, of course, everyone's choice what we do. This is just my 5 cents.

LB-- commented 10 years ago

When it comes to non-profit things, I don't understand the point of a license because it really doesn't matter if someone else calls it their own or makes it proprietary or tries to sell it. The original is free and more people can get their hands on it without being discouraged by the license.

I'm not trying to sway the vote, I just wanted to explain my unusual attraction to unlicense in case you thought I was crazy.

So, it looks like we have 2 primary votes for MIT and 2 secondary votes for MIT, vs 2 primary votes for GPL v2. I'm going to go compare the differences between MIT and GPL v2 and possibly change my secondary vote.

BraydenYates commented 10 years ago

Sounds good to me! I don't feel comfortable contributing much until we have a license (or unlicense). It's just a preference of mine.