Video-games doesn’t need to be free because no one needs to use the code. (Unless It’s the game engine itself.) but it can invade people’s privacy because the code itself is proprietary.

The license conditions:

  • Open Source
    • The Author has to disclose the source code of the distributed software.
  • Privacy Respecting
    • No telemetry or Spyware or/and malicious code or any of It’s kind should be included into the code, with an exception if It’s an opt-out feature.
  • Non copyable/distributable
    • For reserving the rights of selling or distributing the games to the author themselves. It’s prohibited for anyone else to sell or distribute the code with an exception of re-selling or giving away a licensed physical copy of the product.
  • Allow distributing video content - Distributing Gameplay (Video of executing and running the software) is allowed to be monetized or sold as it has nothing to do with the code itself.
  • adrianmalacoda
    14·
    3 years ago

    The usual practice would be to license the game engine as Free Software while keeping the game assets (maps, art, etc) under a proprietary license.

    FYI there is no Free Software (or open source) license that restricts the user’s freedom to modify or distribute, because those are core tenets of both the Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition.

      • adrianmalacoda
        7·
        3 years ago

        Typically copyleft licenses such as the GPL are used for this purpose, because they force modifications to be kept within the community. Note that the GPL is a conditional grant of rights from you to your users, you as the copyright holder are not bound by the conditions of the GPL.

        The most well known practical example of this is probably Doom, which has a thriving mod community in part thanks to being released as free software.

        • EvelynOP
          22·
          3 years ago

          I meant this one:

          FYI there is no Free Software (or open source) license that restricts the user’s freedom to modify or distribute, because those are core tenets of both the Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition

          I already know GPL exists and if I made any kind of software I would in fact use GPL. some people just don’t like the idea of having their software freely distributed and sold (even though people will pirate anyways). that’s why we should have a middle ground for that in order to introduce those people into open source.

          • Werwolf
            3·
            3 years ago

            But that wouldn’t be free software. An essential freedom of free software is the freedom to freely modify and redistribute it.

            Anyway, the license you’re looking for may be CC BY-NC-ND but take into account that CC shouldn’t be used with software, so it’s more for creative work. (License explanation: https://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

            It isn’t a free license (it doesn’t let others to redistribute or sell the content) so I advise you against using it, but since you’re asking for it I answer your question. Now is your turn to choose the right option.

            • EvelynOP
              2·
              3 years ago

              yeah I know. I realized that the middle ground I’m talking about might be bad for everyone and not a solution because I’m trying to solve piracy, and people who want to pirate will pirate anyways.

    • EvelynOP
      1·
      3 years ago

      after reading more into things I’ll be taking back what I said before in this post as I found that it might be detrimental to the community.