Open Source vs Quasi-Open (what we're doing now)

[Mark_Everson]

I am starting a new thread on this...

Rong Said:

BTW, I am still hoping this project can turn into an Open Source project. There is a nice paper about this development model called The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

If you decide to join the future , you can take a look at JOS, maybe even use their web site and CVS server.

Ok, that's enough URI's for one message.

I've read "the Cathedral and the Bazaar" a while ago. I think our model is similar to the Bazaar (open source) with the alteration that at some point parts of the code will become closed so that team members have some chance of getting some monetary rewards for all their efforts. What do others on the team think?

I personally would like to see if Clash is commercially viable to gauge if I could switch to this as a career. Clash would be in a niche market, but a niche of the civ-type game market can still be pretty big . Allowing access to the code to some hard-core programmers might not preclude making money on it, but a gnu-type open code makes it pretty hopeless unless you want to make money in services involving the code (based on what I have read in newsgroups).

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 04, 1999).]

[manurein]

I personnaly am pro-Open source. IMO a GNU-like license doesn't prevent you from selling your software, thus earning money on it; it just prevents you from hiding your code. Is the code so important in this project? Or is it the overall design, the original ideas etc? My personal answer is the second.

[Druid2]

I'm pretty much anti-Open Source in almost every circumstance. True, open source does not prevent anyone from *attempting*to* sell someting. If you produce a first rate, first of its kind game, you're giving away the franchise.

But then again, *g*, I'm not producing any source for this product.

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited May 26, 1999).]

[Blade Runner]

Just a few thought:

I support the open source because:
1. We decided to use the Java system. To decompile a Java system for a good programmer cca. 2-3 days. So I think we can defend not the code, but the ideas and design.
2. If we produce an open source game we can get the support from various Linux and open source people (and free advertising in various forums).
3. I somebody can impove our system a little bit, he can not sell the improved product, if somebody else can do a big leap, anyway that will be a different product. We need to ask to pay royalty for our game system, and everybody happy.

Blade Runner

[Blade Runner]

I find a site with a donationware embeded javascript interpreter with java source. I think is worth to look this program. Maybe we can include in our game. The address is http://home.worldcom.ch/~jmlugrin/fesi/ext.html
In this way we can offer a full featured macro system to change practically everything in the game.

Blade Runner

[F Smith]

Open source, please.

The concept of 'closed-source' is like the recording studio's desire to charge people every time they listen to a song.

Or Disney's idea of charging daycares for every time they show a video of 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks'.

[mca]

I would prefer any code I happen to write for Clash, to be covered by an open source license.

BTW, this rather long article about open source games has some interesting things to say. You probably won't agree with all of it (I don't), but it's an excellent read, I think.

Martin

[Mark_Everson]

I don't have any problem with people who are pro-open-source making their parts of the code open. However, you will need to take it up with whoever designed the module you're dealing with to make sure they feel the same way... Otherwise all you can do is release the code while the group would retain the rights to the model itself. I am Not familiar with all the legal issues.

I think we want to make a substantial part of the code open Anyway. Especially those parts the community would most like to tinker with. And generic tools would certainly be a good thing for which to make the source available. I just want us to be able to gauge the commercial success of the project, and, if Clash is a reasonable success, be able to return something in the way of cash to those who worked so hard to make it so. If after some period of time Clash turned out to be a commercial failure with a small core of enthusiasts, I would certainly be willing to release the entire code also, depending on the wishes of others in the project of course.

Now, to make any of my desires work we need to come up with a marketing model over the web, where the market is not immediately destroyed due to pirating. I'm not sure I have the answers for how to do this, so the whole point on commercial success may be moot.

On the article, it was interesting. Like you said there are lots of things I'm not sure I agree with. Also I think Clash fits a niche in gaming where the arguments the author outlines don't really apply. A Great title in the Civ-like game genre has potential for amazing longevity. That's one reason why getting the scenrio generation capability is so important. We'll only know in the fullness of time if we can hit that target.

[Osiris]

Concerning the philosophy of are source code,
why not just use the philosiphy of the OS it runs on.
For example just have binary for Windows95/98/NT,
for Linux have open-source and binary.

I am not that fimiliar with the copyright laws so I dont know if we could have it both ways, have a GNU license for our Linux version(if we have one) and a basic copyright for our Windows95/98/NT version.

[mca]

Osiris:

In Clash's case, I don't think it is possible to have separate licenses, because both the source code and the "binaries" (the compiled Java classes) are the same for all OSes.

Instead, I think that some parts of the game will be open, and others semi-proprietary, depending on the originators' philosophical alignment.

Martin

[Stephen_Dedalus]

I've bumped this old thread because IMO the benefits of going open-source haven't been discussed yet. Up to here, it seems that these would be distribution and marketing benefits, the possibility of having a community around the game and that "it feels right" sensation. On the other hand, closed source would allow commercial profits for the game.

But the main technical advantage of the bazaar programming style can be seen in the process of development (if we are to believe E. S. Raymond, anyway). Open-source the bazaar way allows for fast debugging-release cycles, speeding the development.

I'm saying this because I've volunteered to code for Clash like a month ago, and I'm still waiting for the code to arrive. It seems contradictory, since here and there I see complaints about the lack of coders, and meanwhile I've done nothing for the project. It's rather frustating: the code could be posted in the web page (if it is an I didn't find it, please ignore me). In the thread about Project management, Druid2 writed about version control and debugging databases: what happened to that?. The models are built in a full open-source bazaar style way. Someone posts the idea, and the model gets rapidly corrected and commented. On the contrary, code production seems to be happening behind the scenes. The current Coding thread (according to The Clash homepage) ends a long a time ago, with the invitation to an ICQ meeting. I've read the thread with the meeting, but that kind of discussion seems to have ended last year. There is little discussion about the architecture of the program (and the discusion ends October '99). There is certainly no "release early, release often": the gap between Demo 4 and Demo 5 is still growing. The set-up time for coders, about which Mark complained in another thread, could be significantly reduced by having a thread with the documentation for each package. In Mark's and Druid2's words, the game is 'quasi-' or 'semi-' open-source. I think Clash is not getting the benefits of it. While the models are being discussed to an incredible level of detail, the program itself seems to be stalled. F_Smith made same very interesting remarks about this in the OOA/OOD thread, but there was no answer.

I know that it's easier to make a comment than to patch a package, and that there are more Civers than Civ-programmers. I know also that the Clash case is very different than the Freeciv case, for example, were the game was fully designed before the project even started. But IMO the Clash design is already strong enough to allow a freer coding approach. Many of the discussions are ending with a "will have to test the gameplay to decide it".

Closed-source is viable only if you have a tight development team. Does Clash have it? I can't tell just by looking at the forum. But if you need more coders, I think changes can be made to the coding prganization to make the project more appealing to the programmer's kind.

[Mark_Everson]

Stephen_Dedalus:

I have to run to work, so this may be a little jumbled due to lack of proofreading...

Everyone wants to make comments, few actually code anything. I can't believe that you did nothing for a whole month without even emailing me and promting me... I simply forgot, for which I apologize. But it Will happen again, just take some simple action man!

I am not a professional programmer, and do not feel competent to administer a version control system either. People have made suggestions about such a thing, but nobody ever Did anything even though I have encouraged several to... Also we have never had more than two coders actually working at the same time, so It never got really necessary IMO. Would you like to look into this, and work to set up something?

All the discussions on coding that end abruptly, are caused by people showing up with (apparent) fire in their belly to do something. They talk a good game, and then usually do little to nothing. So I hope the discussions can be picked up at a later date.

On the open source thing, I really don't care anymore. Some other team members may care, and we need to take their desires into account. If it was the critical difference to get one more really consistent programmer, at this point I think it might be worth it!

[Richard Bruns]

Sorry to add bad news, but my five-year-old computer doesn't have the ability to run the Java 2 compiler and I just found out that I won't be getting my new computer until move-in day at college. So I won't be able to do any Java coding this summer. However, I may be able to copy Mark's idea and make a spreadsheet for the technology system.

[Stephen_Dedalus]

Mark:

My point is that I don't want to bug you to see how the code is doing. I said I would make diplomacy, but I'd like to see how the other sections are doing as well, without having to make a public commitment about what I'll do with them.

I agree: if you only have two coders working at a time, there's little need for version control. But I still think the code should be available. You can go closed source when you're nearer Alpha (which, for what I gather, is far away). On one hand, you complain about the newbies taking your time; on the other, you ask me to mail you three or four times and make commitments before having the chance to even look at the code. You seem a little bitter about people talking and not doing anything: I know it's not nice, and maybe I'm just doing that. But if you have a working a game with the code available (the well documented models are already there), there would be no 'set up time'. I wouldn't even be talking. Either I can do something on my own, and then show it to you and discuss it, or look at it and say I can't. There's seem to be little chance that two programmers start working on the same thing at the same time. Maybe you are used to the idea that you'll made 90% of the coding yourself. If that's the case, well, maybe this discussion is pointless.

I volunteer to sum up the current code and documentation for posting, if you think it would be useful.

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

Aw, (many bad words). Thanks for filling us in... If you still see some java in your future, I'm sure you can get largely up to speed (and probably do large chunks of coding) with earlier java versions over the summer. Let me know if you're interested...

SD:

You are quite right, we could just put the whole source up on the web site, and probably should. We did for demo3, it just didn't happen IIRC for demo 4. I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was waiting for a committment before sending you the code. I will send Anyone that wants it the whole code, sending them the code only takes 5 min. I just Forgot to send it to you... What I won't do is spend hours telling people what I think is the right next thing to do in X area unless I think they are Really committed and have the time. Because I have literally lost Days of productive time talking to losers who never do anything .

IMO your proposal about having all the models presented so clearly that any coder can walk up and take a shot at coding them up is simply not realistic. Things just aren't that well refined yet. The technology model is probably the closest. But the models are intertwined with lots of TBDs. Anyway, I don't think your suggestion is realistic, but we can see what others say.

Personally, I would much rather have you actually coding on the diplo model than trying to write up an overview of the whole project. But since we are a team, If you think that's the critical thing keeping us from getting other coders, I value your judgement.

Thanks for addressing these topics that aren't easy to talk about. I agree with you that there are potential gains in the areas you're discussing. All I can do is state my opinions on what are the right and wrong things to do with regard to getting more real coders on board... I hope for all our sakes I don't end up needing to do 90% of the coding myself!