MIT License · Issue #189 · db0/godot-card-game-framework
github.com
Hey everyone. I'm thinking of moving this framework to an MIT license. With my other work on my FOSS, I haven't had much time to maintain it anymore and move it to Godot 4 and sadly I don't see a l...

I’ve started the CGF some years ago to learn Godot and to provide something to the community. I even made a few FOSS games with it.

Sadly my work with my other FOSS projects and the fediverse doesn’t give me enough time to keep it up to date and to migrate it to Godot 4 and since the engine is picking up a ton of speed, I think it’s a shame people have to keep rediscovering the card game wheel.

I know a lot of people avoid it due to the AGPL3 license, so I am thinking of switching to an MIT license instead in the hopes that others will help carry the torch until I find time to circle back to it. There’s always pitfalls with MIT of course, such as some company trying to enclose it and sell it as a service, but perhaps peer pressure would be enough of a deterrent at this time.

Anyway. Just opening this up for discussion.

  • anlumo@feddit.de
    0·
    6 months ago

    I can tell you that I wouldn’t invest my time in developing a game if there’s no chance of selling it in the first place due to the license requirements of a third party package.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      0·
      6 months ago

      Well AGPL doesn’t prevent selling, but most people think it will steal their sales, which I don’t think it’s true.

      • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.de
        0·
        6 months ago

        agpl does not “steal” sales, but i have to give my users the source code under a gpl compatible license, that includes that they redistirbute the code however they see fit.

        that scares many people, but i guess they forget that your game is more than code and the license does not cover assets

      • anlumo@feddit.de
        0·
        6 months ago

        Yeah in theory people could buy your GPL/AGPL app from you, but they could also get it legally for free from anybody else who has bought it. Guess which way will dominate.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    0·
    6 months ago

    I’m not a gamedev, but have you considered LGPL? My understanding is it allows the use of the library in proprietary software, but still requires improvements to the library itself to be released (although without the network requirement)

    • anlumo@feddit.de
      0·
      6 months ago

      The LGPL is inherently incompatible with anything on Apple’s App Store, so if there’s a chance that I might want to publish it there I can’t touch anything-GPL.

      • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        I get what you mean but at face value that sounds like LGPL is the issue, rather than Apple.

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          0·
          6 months ago

          Depends on your point of view. Legally it definitely is, because the LGPL stipulates that nobody is allowed to attach any restrictions on to the code above the things the LGPL restricts itself. This makes it impossible to combine with the App Store, because that store adds additional restrictions.