Hacker News Reader

Comment by hgs3 | Hacker News Reader

From what I understand, if a game engine's source code is GPL, there is no legal way to require derived games release their assets under a CC license. Does this mean we need a "super license" that incorporates the terms of both GPL (for the code) and CC-BY-SA (for the assets)?

View on HN

Why should derivative works have to release assets under CC? What's the goal? Is it so bad if people still have artistic IP but the underlying code is Free?

Games are a combination of art and code. Why should programmers be the only one's required to release their work under a viral license? Artist should as well.

I mean I do think it's fine if you wish to try to take this route. Nothing morally wrong or anything.

But I think the art itself isn't just like code. It's not just the bits used to make images on screen.

There are characters, stories, ideas, and worlds being created derived from the artist's personal life and philosophy. That's the actual appeal, and there are more downsides to making your IP open like this than there are downsides to FOSSing your game code.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think game code - which is responsible for the mechanics and "feel" of a game - is merely "bits used to make images on screen." To me game code is as unique as the artwork. However, the purpose of the engine code is as you describe so maybe it could be FOSS? Maybe LGPL?

Why not release the assets under the GPL?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftwa...

Same logic as with Machine Learning model: the code can be GPL, the weights can be with any other license. (cf LLaMa)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com