Selling games and licences issues v.2019

[Dakangel]

I read this tread Damon Caskey made About OpenBOR License.

Everything ok then, openbor is some close to public domain according to BSD licence and there is no need to ask any permision about.

Now if i want to sell a game and block or close or secure my pack i can´´´´'t because de source about that is nowhere, and acording to above linked tread, the "openbor community" (DC in this case) will not support modified versions of the engine.
If there is no manner to secure a pack of course i need to edit the source to create a custom algoritm to achieve that, but there is a paradox here, if i modify the engine to secure my ORIGINAL game, the "community" will treat me as an unnoficial and with that even will block any advertising or link related to it.

DC said in that tread:
"As any forks or copies are by virtue of the original license also considered open, no unofficial license will be honored. The unofficial project will be reviewed and improvements (if any) will be copied without credit to the official code base."

Ok Ok.....

If you can copy without any credit but i need to maintain the licence and credited the original authors of the engine i have some thing to ask.

1.- Can you please give me a copy of that source code that had been embeded on earlier openbor instalments and are adjudicated in the open source sharing licenses?
2.- Can you give me the assurance that nobody but me can see or modify the content of my game, without taking into account the engine with which it was created?
3.- What parts of openbor are on what licence? because DC and Plombo have their respective contributions archived in their personal code maintainers for newer engine installments.
4.- In that case i want to use some pre SDL2 build (before drop old consoles) and those SDL1 ones are involved with that secure pack thing.

Please ill be gratefull for your responses, im serious about those licencing, permision and copy protection issues, i hope you can be serious in the respective answers.

 

[DCurrent]

I read this tread Damon Caskey made About OpenBOR License.

Everything ok then, openbor is some close to public domain according to BSD licence and there is no need to ask any permision about.

Now if i want to sell a game and block or close or secure my pack i can´´´´'t because de source about that is nowhere, and acording to above linked tread, the "openbor community" (DC in this case) will not support modified versions of the engine.

It looks like you missed the spirit of that thread - it's not about my being the big bad boss. Policies tend to look unfriendly because they have to be spelled out clearly with no questions. Right under that you'll notice the part where special cases can come up and will be dealt with.

If there is no manner to secure a pack of course i need to edit the source to create a custom algoritm to achieve that, but there is a paradox here, if i modify the engine to secure my ORIGINAL game, the "community" will treat me as an unnoficial and with that even will block any advertising or link related to it.

DC said in that tread:
"As any forks or copies are by virtue of the original license also considered open, no unofficial license will be honored. The unofficial project will be reviewed and improvements (if any) will be copied without credit to the official code base."

This refers to numerous attempts by disgruntled and or unscrupulous coders who have in the past (and still do as we speak) attempt to steal all or part of the engine and take credit for it. Whether they do this because they don't like my polices, want to build an engine but lack the know how to do it from the ground up, are on some open source means uncontrolled source crusade, add some feature, want to port it to Atari, or whatever else is immaterial. The end result is horizontal compatibility issues on top of the vertical ones we already deal with, and I'll do everything in my power to prevent that.

It's kind of ironic to me that some module authors think the engine should be wide open in all aspects - but their modules get to be closed source. Funny how that works when the shoe is on the other foot... 

i have some thing to ask.

I'll do my best to answer your questions...

1.- Can you please give me a copy of that source code that had been embeded on earlier openbor instalments and are adjudicated in the open source sharing licenses?

Short version: No - because I don't have it.

Long version:  Securepak was built by the former lead developer SX who retired several years ago, and he stopped working on it long before that. By its very nature Securepak had to be closed source. Basically SX kept the library with the encrypting algorithm and the Securepak tool. When a secure request was made he would compile a private OpenBOR build with the library included. The author would send SX his or her module, SX would then secure the pak, and send all of that back to the author.

Only one module was ever approved for this process (NightslashersX), and SX made that decision, not me. After that, we both agreed it was not fair for us to judge which modules were "worthy" of being secured or not. So a policy was set that only modules containing all original material (including IP) would be approved for securing.

Within months, the engine progressed to a point where the Securepak source was no longer compatible. To my knowledge SX never updated it and after he retired, I never built a replacement. It wasn't a high priority for the simple fact that in the ~14 years of OpenBOR's existence and all the talk of making original commercial games, only one person (nsw25) actually made a serious attempt.

2.- Can you give me the assurance that nobody but me can see or modify the content of my game, without taking into account the engine with which it was created?

No  I can't - because again, there is currently no locking mechanism available as part of our toolset. If you build and release an original game, I will treat it the same way I do OpenBOR's source. That is, I will use the community's influence to protect it to the best of my ability. But I can't actually stop someone from opening up the game and doing whatever.

3.- What parts of openbor are on what licence?

All parts of the engine are under the same license. For quite some time we did have libraries that belonged to other entities and this prevented us from giving permission to sell OpenBOR games (since we couldn't speak for those entities). That's not a problem any more. To keep it that way, any source code added to the engine falls under the OpenBOR liecnse. For example, I can't write a library and insert it into the engine under my "DC License". Either I give my source code up under the OpenBOR license or the code is removed.

... because DC and Plombo have their respective contributions archived in their personal code maintainers for newer engine installments.

Uhm, no we don't. What you see is what we've got. Neither Plombo or I have some kind of secret stash of OpenBOR. Any private code we have is under development and doesn't actually work yet. I do keep a private copy of the source to experiment on for bug testing, but it doesn't do anything the public copy can't. In fact it's quite a few versions behind. I can't speak for Plombo, but I imagine his copies are similar.

I also don't have any code that predates the repository. That source was lost before I came on as a developer.

4.- In that case i want to use some pre SDL2 build (before drop old consoles) and those SDL1 ones are involved with that secure pack thing.

You can use whatever version you feel like, but if you do you'll be on your own. Bugs, missing features, whatever else, will be your problem. And as above, that's not going to get you the Securepak functionality you are looking for. Quite simply, Securepak no longer exists. I will consider redeveloping it, but when that happens, the same rules will apply. You must own or have proven copyright permission for every aspect of the module.

Hope that helps a bit.

DC

 

[Dakangel]

The engine is opensource by decision of the original creators of the code, however the games created, the audio tracks, images, should not be; if you do not like that you can make yours from scratch and sell the license to anyone, with their respective terms of use.
I dont want to make one because there is an Open source solution.

You started as a contributor, until the others left the project to your trust and little by little you began to believe you the owner and you are missing the agreement of open source licenses, where if I ask you, you should be able to give it to me, no matter what is currently incompatible, since it was used in compiled versions of the engine and those have another licence agrements

About OpenBOR License.

No  I can't - because again, there is currently no locking mechanism available as part of our toolset. If you build and release an original game, I will treat it the same way I do OpenBOR's source. That is, I will use the community's influence to protect it to the best of my ability. But I can't actually stop someone from opening up the game and doing whatever.

You can use whatever version you feel like, but if you do you'll be on your own. Bugs, missing features, whatever else, will be your problem. And as above, that's not going to get you the Securepak functionality you are looking for. Quite simply, Securepak no longer exists. I will consider redeveloping it, but when that happens, the same rules will apply. You must own or have proven copyright permission for every aspect of the module.

Hope that helps a bit.

DC

So you can´'t share that incompatible source because you lost it, although you have said several times that he and you were the only ones who could do it, although I think it is a convenient amnesia in this case to justify.

You said that if you rewrite an securer for the code, you'll be the only one able to use it again, right? and we start again with the one who, some day someone will ask you for that coding and if it was used, it is in all the right to receive a copy.

Finally

What do you care if I have the rights to my game, that's my thing, what matters is the engine that runs them and its commercial use; you said the important thing, all code in the engine is open source. (except the conveniently lost parts) to whaterver i want.

You do not assure me anything, so I'll have to make a private version that blocks access to modify the game package and as you already said ,everything I do is on my own and without support from this site, I think I'll just use this "supporter site" only to check bug fixes or new things that work for me.

It is concluded that the advantage of being an open program is like a restaurant, if I want, it can be used to sell and it is not obligatory to share the recipes.

Everything is clear, you can close this.

 

[DCurrent]

Close the thread? I'll do you one better - now that I know who you are and you past record. I thought you were making a serious inquiry, but now realize this was yet another troll post. Which I admit falling for - hook, line, and sinker. And it comes immediately after returning from a warning mute by O Ilusionista.

Obviously you didn't learn a thing. So you're out. Also, since you've yet to lift a finger in fourteen years to do anything beyond trolling this and other forums, I won't hold my breath about that mythical super build you're going to create.

DC

 

[DCurrent]

Oh, I'd forgotten about Golden Axe Myth. Very cool module. The other one I've never heard of.

You're still the first to make a serious go at commercialization though. No one refused to help,
we just don't have a tool to do it. Guess I'll have to add building a new securing tool to my agenda. Didn't have enough to do already... 

DC

 

[Kratus]

Is good to know about secure pak. It's still early to tell but I will need this in the future for a possible commercial game.
Don't worry, if this really happens all content will be 100% original/licensed.

 

[O Ilusionista]

As we talked before, I really don't think you should waste your time with secure pak, really.
By many reasons:

- Secure pak isn't that secure - Golden Axe myth were already cracked open, and its not hard to do it (I did it myself too, but never posted about it)
- We would attract the kind of people like the OP (and people have no clue of what happens behind the curtains, like xenophobism).
- There isn't a 100% secure way to protect any content.
- To protect something that you doesn't own the IP is kinda...strange
- I know your free time is very limited and I would prefer to have you busy with other more useful things

Just my two cents.

 

[DCurrent]

As we talked before, I really don't think you should waste your time with secure pak, really.
By many reasons:

- Secure pak isn't that secure - Golden Axe myth were already cracked open, and its not hard to do it (I did it myself too, but never posted about it)
- We would attract the kind of people like the OP (and people have no clue of what happens behind the curtains, like xenophobism).
- There isn't a 100% secure way to protect any content.
- To protect something that you doesn't own the IP is kinda...strange
- I know your free time is very limited and I would prefer to have you busy with other more useful things

Just my two cents.

All these are valid points except for one:

To protect something that you doesn't own the IP is kinda...strange

I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself - If ever create a securing tool, it will be private and I will never secure any module for anyone unless they have copyright to 100% of the material. This includes the IP - so even a module like Golden Axe Myth would not qualify. It has all original assets, but the authors don't have any legitimate license to the Golden Axe franchise.

To my knowledge the only modules in our entire library that are fully owned by the author are the Urban Lockdown and Bad Ass Babes series. Nothing else would qualify, full stop. Roy Streets comes close, but has ripped sounds and fonts.

DC

 

[ABK]

I see securing the game to be a way to respect my time put into making it or treat fairly all clients who will buy the game in the future, they wont value it if all files can be modified at any time by anyone with reading skills, everything else including losing money and piracy,modifications of the game.. thats just the nature of that business, im sure theres gonna be someone who will break the security algorithm but at least having something that prevents modification would be nice.
So far its like infinite loop - waiting for someone whos work is suitable to be secured but people dont even want to start making it because theres no working way to secure it so they choose other engines.
Comments about protecting capcoms or snks sprites are understandable but are no argument for people who create content themselves so i would ignore it.
This conversation comes back every year or so, nothing came out of it in the past which is too bad.
If people want scripts from the game or graphics, just ask instead of breaking encryption.
My 2 demo mods like bears and snail & turtle have original graphics and sounds/music but theres more like bloodbane's games or gudule, that playstore test game by msmalik, theres more but im a forum noob so i cant tell.
Games dont have to be state of the art but if assets arent ripped let people secure them.

 

[DCurrent]

bWWd, it's not really that simple though. There are three main ways to secure a game, and each has its own set of problems.

[list type=decimal]
[*]I write up a new packing tool that allows each author to add a cypher or passcode to seed the encryption. That way you could secure modules yourselves at will. This has two main problems. The first is a combination of licensing and technical. It would be a huge time investment on my part, with very little return. It would also require I keep a portion of the engine source closed - which violates the license and hilariously enough would be doing exactly what the OP is accusing me of! More importantly, it would inevitably start up a war of egos similar to the Mugen warehousing drama. I can already see rumblings of one with the current Securepak debate as is. Screw that.
[*]Engine and assets are compiled together. This is how a lot of other engines work, and it's a fairly elegant solution. Problem is OpenBOR is designed to be just the opposite - fully separate from the game content. And for good reason. Compiling anything at all goes well beyond the average module author's technical capabilities. Besides, as nsw25 pointed out, there are external tools to do this already. The best overall solution may well be to provide tutorials on how to use them.
[*]The old Securepak tool. As I explained above, this worked by SX compiling a private a build of the engine with Securepak code in it, securing modules sent to him on request, then sending secured module and private build back to the author. Still pretty dubious by licensing standards, but it worked. Let's assume I could rebuild Securepak and do the same. Then comes the biggest pitfall of all. Someone (SX then, and me now) has to judge what modules get secured. So who's work is worthy? Would I judge by quality? Hours spent? Who bribes me more? I'm not playing that game. The only 100% fair, indisputable hard line is "Do you or do you not own the rights?"[/list]

Of all those the one that sounds best to me is the already existing option of external compiling tools. Don't ask me to help, because I won't. I have no desire or obligation to assist anyone with securing something they don't own. But if one of you wants to write up something I won't try to stop you.

DC

 

[mersox]

So far its like infinite loop - waiting for someone whos work is suitable to be secured but people dont even want to start making it because theres no working way to secure it so they choose other engines.

If people want scripts from the game or graphics, just ask instead of breaking encryption.

I agree with this, a lot. It would be nice to know that the option exists. At this points there's plenty of unprotected mods out there. It's OK if some future mods are encrypted - one would only need to contact the creator, which honestly it's something we should do anyway.

 

[msmalik681]

Damon Caskey

Would it not be possible to add a password when you pack up the data then ask for a password to unpack the data but openbor has some kind of master key to read from any mod ?

I am sure any good programmer would be able to hack around it but at least it will stop average people messing with protected work.

 

[DCurrent]

Damon Caskey

Would it not be possible to add a password when you pack up the data then ask for a password to unpack the data but openbor has some kind of master key to read from any mod ?

That's pretty much what I outlined in option 1 above.

 

[ABK]

Too many assumptions, this way of thinking only slows things down.
Its like trying to come up with reasons not to make gas lighters or knives because they can hurt people if used in a bad way, they can also be used for great things.
Some kind of security would be nice but not unsupervised.
Also lets be real, even if someone would secure game with capcom sprites... so what ? I dont care and whos the one that gets hurt by that? Why? In what way ? So he wont be able to lookup scripts or modify graphics ? We have plenty of manuals around and paxplodable mods.
If someone would make a script and wants to protect it ? Only art and music.sounds is protected and coding is not ? Thats strange.
Yeah its a bit of trollo questions but some are valid, what about coding.

 

[haxpor]

DC sums it up nicely for the state of OpenBOR engine about this securing content.

I agree on those points. I'll likely choose to go with option 1 but that means all users need to be able to compile the code themselves. This approach has been done nicely in cocos2dx + texturepacker community. Texturepacker secures the content using a long key passphase set from within the tool itself, then in code devs use such passphase splitting them into multiple parts then put it sparsely in multiple places in the code to make it harder to do reverse engineer. Texturepacker has API to accept partial passphase, and it's  designed in this way (https://www.codeandweb.com/texturepacker/tutorials/texturepacker-content-protection). Yes, it works. But again, the benefit of fully separation of code and content is what OpenBOR offers which I really like, it will be hard decision to choose one or another.

It's great to consider and think how to solve this.

Cheers,

PS. I'm also another user that really wants to see this have place in the engine, this will encourage users to create original content especially those who's making commercial IP or similar stuff.

 

[ABK]

I agree, good to have you around !

 

[haxpor]

I agree, good to have you around !

Likewise, cheers mate! Good to be here.