LÖVE and open/closed-source, hidden/not-hidden code

[adnzzzzZ]

Discussion about those issues goes here.

To start off, I have a question: isn't the idea of making LÖVE only for open-source projects similar to how the GPL license works? Isn't that a bad idea?

[szensk]

It's a limiting idea to only allow Love to be used with open source games. It limits the author's freedom to decide how to distribute his work. The zlib license, I suspect, was chosen for this reason. The game player's freedom isn't an important issue, as they are not the user of Love; rather the game author is the user.

But as others have said, the visibility of your source code has little to do with this. If your source code is visible and a license is included the prohibits modification, redistribution, etc. then it is unlawful behavior to do so.

[adnzzzzZ]

But as others have said, the visibility of your source code has little to do with this. If your source code is visible and a license is included the prohibits modification, redistribution, etc. then it is unlawful behavior to do so.

Does anyone have experience with going through the enforcement of punishment against said unlawful behavior? Laws are useful if they are enforced, and I find it hard to believe that on such a situation going through the motions of enforcing this particular branch of the law will be easy at all.

[szensk]

But as others have said, the visibility of your source code has little to do with this. If your source code is visible and a license is included the prohibits modification, redistribution, etc. then it is unlawful behavior to do so.

Does anyone have experience with going through the enforcement of punishment against said unlawful behavior? Laws are useful if they are enforced, and I find it hard to believe that on such a situation going through the motions of enforcing this particular branch of the law will be easy at all.

I don't, but it's very typically easy to submit a DMCA request which this legal disclaimer would give you the right to do so.

[Robin]

Plus, licensing works as a deterrent, especially when dealing with corporations rather than lone wolfs. Companies tend to spend a lot of money on licenses for IP stuff, just to make sure they can't be sued (even if it'd be unlikely).

For individuals, AFAIK, emotion based tactics (especially guilt and sympathy) work better than legal or technological tactics.

[adnzzzzZ]

For individuals, AFAIK, emotion based tactics (especially guilt and sympathy) work better than legal or technological tactics.

That's literally the same as saying they don't work at all. Going from how I think in general alone, if I was motivated to see how something worked, guilt tripping me would be highly ineffective and would actually work against you (the person trying to protect his work). The only thing keeping me from figuring things out would be to make it hard enough, because then I'd give up if I thought it was too much work.

[Robin]

Going from how I think in general alone,

Luckily, not all people think like you do.

And you don't need to stop everyone: you just want to maximise profits (presumably), which means maximising the money your are given by the suckers who play your game, while minimising the amount you spend to get them to do that.

[adnzzzzZ]

Going from how I think in general alone,

Luckily, not all people think like you do.

What percentage of the population shares my mindset aside, "let's hope for the best out of people" seems like a naive stance to take regarding security.

[adrix89]

Going from how I think in general alone, if I was motivated to see how something worked, guilt tripping me would be highly ineffective and would actually work against you (the person trying to protect his work).

It depends on what you want to achieve.
If you have a super secret implementation stuff that give you an edge competitively or is used for multiplayer then by all means implement some obfuscation.
If all you care about is to not be cloned whole sale then a explicit license and appeal to emotion is good enough.

[bartbes]

isn't the idea of making LÖVE only for open-source projects similar to how the GPL license works? Isn't that a bad idea?

LÖVE isn't only for open-source projects.