I know that currently Residual only partially supports Grim Fandango and the Grime Fandango Demo and hopefully in the future will also support Escape From Monkey Island. But I think it would be great if plans for Residual future could include support for these games/engines:
- Telltale Games current engine (Sam & Max Season 1 & 2, Bone 1 & 2, Strong Bad, Wallace & Grommet)
- Autumn Moons soon to be released A Vampire Story series.
- And Discworld Noir
I know adding games is hard work but both Telltale Games and Autumn Moon have good relationships with their fans so they may be willing to allow Residual to support their engines closed source. Not every part of Residual has to be open source if it allows support for more games.
Just an idea as Residual is still not done supporting the GrimE engine.
Residual Future
Moderator: ScummVM Team
-
ezekiel000
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: Surrey, England
Re: Residual Future
I always thought you can't just exclude parts of a project from the GPL (or at least not easily).ezekiel000 wrote:I know adding games is hard work but both Telltale Games and Autumn Moon have good relationships with their fans so they may be willing to allow Residual to support their engines closed source. Not every part of Residual has to be open source if it allows support for more games.
Also, what's the point? If it's not open source it's less portable; if you want to run the games on exotic platforms, you might be better off asking the companies directly.
-
ezekiel000
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: Surrey, England
Well I was thinking the engines could be packaged separately like nVidia drivers for Linux. And what I meant by they might allow you to support their engines closed source is that they would give you the source code with an NDA and allow you to port it to a Residual engine the same way that it has been done most recently with Discworld for ScummVM. The only difference is that you wouldn't be able to distribute the source code to the engine, I'm sure it can be done with Residual under the GPL and these engines distributed as a plugin under a driffrent licence. This would allow these games to run on any system that Residual runs on.
On the other hand Telltale and Autumn Moon are too small to be able to port their games themselves like ID Software and Epic do with Doom and Unreal. They need to put all their effort into the biggest market for adventure games which is currently Windows and Wii.
On the other hand Telltale and Autumn Moon are too small to be able to port their games themselves like ID Software and Epic do with Doom and Unreal. They need to put all their effort into the biggest market for adventure games which is currently Windows and Wii.
Err, so you essentially want us to work for free for those companies to port their closed source engines for them to many platforms, so that they can earn more money from them?
I don't see how that would be appealing to us. There is absolutely no benefit in there for us.
And no, it is *not* the same thing as with DW "only you can't distribute the result as open source". That's a bit like saying "giving something away as a gift is exactly the same as selling it, only without asking for money". Technically, that might be true, but I think you'd still be surprised if I gave you a present, waited till you accepted it, and then asked you to pay for it -- wouldn't you?
On a personal level, I must say that I totally abhor the NVIDIA approach to Linux graphics drivers. It violates the spirit of the GPL in a bad way, even though it might be legally OK. Luckily, this legal loophole is not possible with engine plugins for ScummVM. Still, posts like this really make me consider starting a drive to get ScummVM GPL3'ed, just to close even the remote loopholes...
Finally, I wonder if you are as eager to give away your spare time for free, as you are willing to let others do slave work to satisfy your desires.
I don't see how that would be appealing to us. There is absolutely no benefit in there for us.
And no, it is *not* the same thing as with DW "only you can't distribute the result as open source". That's a bit like saying "giving something away as a gift is exactly the same as selling it, only without asking for money". Technically, that might be true, but I think you'd still be surprised if I gave you a present, waited till you accepted it, and then asked you to pay for it -- wouldn't you?
On a personal level, I must say that I totally abhor the NVIDIA approach to Linux graphics drivers. It violates the spirit of the GPL in a bad way, even though it might be legally OK. Luckily, this legal loophole is not possible with engine plugins for ScummVM. Still, posts like this really make me consider starting a drive to get ScummVM GPL3'ed, just to close even the remote loopholes...
Finally, I wonder if you are as eager to give away your spare time for free, as you are willing to let others do slave work to satisfy your desires.
-
ezekiel000
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: Surrey, England
It is essentially the same thing, you work for free at the moment to port all these other games this is just a sugestion for newer games to be ported. I'll come back in 10 years as it will be ok just because then the company won't make money by selling their game content to play on your interpreter. (That said you currently support Curse of the Monkey Island, Sam & Max Hit the Road and are in the process of supporting Grim Fandango these are all being sold by LucasArts at the moment and you have or are porting them for free while LucasArts makes money from anyone that uses anything but windows for your work)
I could have suggested that you could talk these companies into allowing you to release the source code for these engines if they allowed you to support these games but that is unlikely as it's currently used in their latest products or I could have suggested you to cut a deal with these companies to support their games closed source and they will sell there games with your interpreter with their games and your team gets a percentage. But both these are highly-unlikely and I'm not a dreamer so I looked for the most realistic option and I seem to have misjudged your view on supporting new games with the backing of the game companies, I'm sorry for that.
You decided to work for free on all these projects and you decided to set-up this sub-forum to allow for very-unlikely to stupid ideas. I never said you must do this just an idea that you can easyily ignore as you like, there is no need to be so angry.
And if you hate this kind of idea so much why haven't you moved ScummVM to GPL3 yet? It seems sensible and I wouldn't have suggested this if it was.
I could have suggested that you could talk these companies into allowing you to release the source code for these engines if they allowed you to support these games but that is unlikely as it's currently used in their latest products or I could have suggested you to cut a deal with these companies to support their games closed source and they will sell there games with your interpreter with their games and your team gets a percentage. But both these are highly-unlikely and I'm not a dreamer so I looked for the most realistic option and I seem to have misjudged your view on supporting new games with the backing of the game companies, I'm sorry for that.
You decided to work for free on all these projects and you decided to set-up this sub-forum to allow for very-unlikely to stupid ideas. I never said you must do this just an idea that you can easyily ignore as you like, there is no need to be so angry.
And if you hate this kind of idea so much why haven't you moved ScummVM to GPL3 yet? It seems sensible and I wouldn't have suggested this if it was.
Escape from Monkey Island is using the same engine Grim Fandango, although another format for the movies IIRC, so it's reasonably possible.
Discworld Noir is, well another engine and thus more hard to do, even though it's a pre-rendered background with 3D people. However, as the ScummVM team managed to get the Discworld source I guess they some day might manage to get the Discworld Noir source? In any case, it would be awesome to see.
The other games are much less likely, if not on the borderline to impossible. See no reason for it either. Besides, doing closed source royally sucks and should be avoided for these kind of projects. Not to mention that the Telltale games are 3D games and doesn't use prerendered backgrounds at all.
Discworld Noir is, well another engine and thus more hard to do, even though it's a pre-rendered background with 3D people. However, as the ScummVM team managed to get the Discworld source I guess they some day might manage to get the Discworld Noir source? In any case, it would be awesome to see.
The other games are much less likely, if not on the borderline to impossible. See no reason for it either. Besides, doing closed source royally sucks and should be avoided for these kind of projects. Not to mention that the Telltale games are 3D games and doesn't use prerendered backgrounds at all.
Actually no, it is NOT the same thing. As Fingolfin already mentioned, closed source plugins are against the spirit of GPL. Why would someone want to work on a "black box"?ezekiel000 wrote:It is essentially the same thing, you work for free at the moment to port all these other games this is just a sugestion for newer games to be ported.
Erm... no. We are NOT porting the games themselves, only their interpreters. Companies sell them normally, and ScummVM needs the game files themselves, in the same manner that the original games do.ezekiel000 wrote:That said you currently support Curse of the Monkey Island, Sam & Max Hit the Road and are in the process of supporting Grim Fandango these are all being sold by LucasArts at the moment and you have or are porting them for free while LucasArts makes money from anyone that uses anything but windows for your work)
Many companies have given us the source code for their games (Revolution, Adventuresoft, Wyrmkeep, Alchachofa soft, Interactive Binary Illusions etc). Lucasarts is not one of them, and it's their choiceezekiel000 wrote:I could have suggested that you could talk these companies into allowing you to release the source code for these engines if they allowed you to support these games but that is unlikely as it's currently used in their latest products
NO. ScummVM is under the terms of the GPL license, i.e. open source code, given for free. We don't want to earn money from what we're doing, we're doing it because we want to (same as most open source projects). Getting money from game sales is out of the question, it is against everything this (and all open source projects) stand forezekiel000 wrote:or I could have suggested you to cut a deal with these companies to support their games closed source and they will sell there games with your interpreter with their games and your team gets a percentage
Various reasons, check scummvm-develezekiel000 wrote:And if you hate this kind of idea so much why haven't you moved ScummVM to GPL3 yet? It seems sensible and I wouldn't have suggested this if it was.
-
ezekiel000
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: Surrey, England
I didn't realise that was the difference, I thought it was a major update to the GrimE engine.Freddo wrote:Escape from Monkey Island is using the same engine Grim Fandango, although another format for the movies IIRC, so it's reasonably possible.
To port any of these games all you have to do is port the interpreter which is what you are doing.md5 wrote:Erm... no. We are NOT porting the games themselves, only their interpreters. Companies sell them normally, and ScummVM needs the game files themselves, in the same manner that the original games do.
GPL allows for commercial distribution.md5 wrote:NO. ScummVM is under the terms of the GPL license, i.e. open source code, given for free. We don't want to earn money from what we're doing, we're doing it because we want to (same as most open source projects). Getting money from game sales is out of the question, it is against everything this (and all open source projects) stand for
Open source by default also doesn't mean not paying for software, it is about freedom to mess around with code and give back your modifications to the community. For example you can include the source code when you sell a program/game and it could be open source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition)
Your doing what your doing because it's a hobby that you enjoy (if not why are you doing it) getting a cut because someone sells a game packaged with ScummVM or Residual wouldn't change that.
Actually I don't see myself the connection between OpenSource and free (as in no cost) restribution. Take that Broken Sword 1+2 bundle which was shipped with ScummVM as an example, of course you can argue now if the money was only for the datafiles or not.md5 wrote:NO. ScummVM is under the terms of the GPL license, i.e. open source code, given for free. We don't want to earn money from what we're doing, we're doing it because we want to (same as most open source projects). Getting money from game sales is out of the question, it is against everything this (and all open source projects) stand forezekiel000 wrote:or I could have suggested you to cut a deal with these companies to support their games closed source and they will sell there games with your interpreter with their games and your team gets a percentage
Also I'm a bit reculant to only connect all OpenSource projects to the free (as in no cost again) redistribution, it should be more than that IMHO. Also I myself wouldn't use the term OpenSource but rather FreeSoftware.
On another point I would doubt that we stand for a 'typical' or 'ideal' FOSS project. Our development looks sometimes not really free / open. Take all those engines which were developed secretly and then committed after they had nearlly full support. (ie. 'MADE', 'Touche', another thing is the 'Mohawk' engine clone2727 is working on and giving public updates (an exception it seems), no public accessable source there either). Our Tinsel (Discworld) engine is an exception here, since we had to do it this not public way because of the agreement over the source code they gave us. Also our team sometimes has a lack of communication as you can see in certain emails on -devel, of course people could be busy with real-life, but I doubt it seeing for how long it's been like this now... Both are points totally against the FreeSoftware spirit.
And on topic again: I don't really see why we should port things for them closed sourcely, if they supply the source and allow it to be distributed under the GPL one with too much time could think of looking at porting all their fancy closed source graphics engines.
SVN Build updated
My main concern is not the commercial part -- if they give us the source for free, with the permission to distribute it, or at least a derived engine, in the open, I am interested.
The point is, it's still open, everybody can use it, modify it, contribute to it, etc. -- and if the company who donated the source then wants to sell a compilation of their game together with our enhanced engine, I am fine.
But if they only give use the source "closed", require us to sign contracts, NDAs, etc., but ultimately not allowing us to distribute it or our derived work openly, then sell the resulting work... Then this is something completely different from the above scenario. Then we essentially worked for free for them, as a subcontractor who is asked to port their engine to other systems, free of charge. Even if they allow us (oh, how *generous*) to distribute the resulting binary, that makes no difference, because of course it would be useless w/o the data files. And if I work as a subcontractor, I want to be paid for it.
If they allow us to release the resulting source to the public, under the GPL, this change the picture radically. Sure, we might work on the source "secretly" initially, but still the end product is open to everybody. To be messed with, modified, learned from, distributed, etc. I can show it off and say "here, I ported that". People can help working on it. All our porters can get theirs hand on it, test it on their systems.
The "open" part really makes a huge difference here. The all-deciding difference, I'd say
.
To elaborate yet more: I like OSS because it's open. Take that away, and it stops being OSS. In particular, if a company wants to sell their games and bundle ScummVM with it, I am happy. As long as they follow the GPL and give us credit, point people to the sources etc. If they use ScummVM *secretly* they break our license and the idea of OSS, and I am unhappy, and will take steps. If they use ScummVM as a free gift to develop their engine based on it -- I am happy -- as long as they comply to our license and release the full source to their engine. If they try to use the ScummVM core to release a closed source binary, they are breaking the spirit of the whole thing (by being not open, by not giving back). Hence I don't like it; if (worse) they do not even acknowledge ScummVM, I like it even less, and again, will take steps against them.
The point is, it's still open, everybody can use it, modify it, contribute to it, etc. -- and if the company who donated the source then wants to sell a compilation of their game together with our enhanced engine, I am fine.
But if they only give use the source "closed", require us to sign contracts, NDAs, etc., but ultimately not allowing us to distribute it or our derived work openly, then sell the resulting work... Then this is something completely different from the above scenario. Then we essentially worked for free for them, as a subcontractor who is asked to port their engine to other systems, free of charge. Even if they allow us (oh, how *generous*) to distribute the resulting binary, that makes no difference, because of course it would be useless w/o the data files. And if I work as a subcontractor, I want to be paid for it.
If they allow us to release the resulting source to the public, under the GPL, this change the picture radically. Sure, we might work on the source "secretly" initially, but still the end product is open to everybody. To be messed with, modified, learned from, distributed, etc. I can show it off and say "here, I ported that". People can help working on it. All our porters can get theirs hand on it, test it on their systems.
The "open" part really makes a huge difference here. The all-deciding difference, I'd say
.To elaborate yet more: I like OSS because it's open. Take that away, and it stops being OSS. In particular, if a company wants to sell their games and bundle ScummVM with it, I am happy. As long as they follow the GPL and give us credit, point people to the sources etc. If they use ScummVM *secretly* they break our license and the idea of OSS, and I am unhappy, and will take steps. If they use ScummVM as a free gift to develop their engine based on it -- I am happy -- as long as they comply to our license and release the full source to their engine. If they try to use the ScummVM core to release a closed source binary, they are breaking the spirit of the whole thing (by being not open, by not giving back). Hence I don't like it; if (worse) they do not even acknowledge ScummVM, I like it even less, and again, will take steps against them.
-
ezekiel000
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: Surrey, England
I can understand that you want it open source and I agree its the way it should be the only reason I suggested closed source plugin style was because that seem the most likely.
Well you never know they might be open to the idea, but also as was pointed out before the Telltale games are fully 3D (which I didn't realise I have only played the demo of the first Bone game and I remembered it being pre-rendered backgrounds) and so is not quite within the scope of residual.
On the other hand I did some work ages ago figuring out the file formats on Discworld Noir and the only 3D object in the game is the main character all other characters are huge sprites. And I think it was the animations for the main character where easy to decipher (I think it was back in 2003/4).
And as far as I know Autumn Moon uses pre-rendered backgrounds but that hasn't even been released yet.
Well you never know they might be open to the idea, but also as was pointed out before the Telltale games are fully 3D (which I didn't realise I have only played the demo of the first Bone game and I remembered it being pre-rendered backgrounds) and so is not quite within the scope of residual.
On the other hand I did some work ages ago figuring out the file formats on Discworld Noir and the only 3D object in the game is the main character all other characters are huge sprites. And I think it was the animations for the main character where easy to decipher (I think it was back in 2003/4).
And as far as I know Autumn Moon uses pre-rendered backgrounds but that hasn't even been released yet.