Hacker News Reader

Comment by nanidin | Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that the web version is open source, but the version for sale on the iOS Appstore is not open source.

Shouldn't it be open source under the terms of the original game's license? (https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mp...) Or is a port not considered a derivative work?

A port is a derivative work, yes, though the MPL has a kind of unique rule for derivative works. You can combine MPL-licensed source files with non-MPL-licensed source files, as long as all changes to the original MPL-licensed source files stay MPL.

I think what's really happening though is that they're not relying on the MPL at all for permission to do the iOS port, but on a direct license from Townsend. It sounds like there is even some kind of formal business relationship (the article is a bit vague on it, but it sounds like Townsend is involved in the port and getting a share of the profits).

Michael issued me a license, and he gets a 50% royalty. It would have been extremely sleezy of me if I profited from this without including Michael. Even if it were entirely legal.

Additionally, I didn't write the game in JavaScript. So none of the original source was used. I used a snapshot Michael gave me as a reference and rewrote the entire thing from scratch in RubyMotion.

My impression (based on the article alone) was that the author of the ios version is pretty much benefiting from the sales exclusively. Perhaps I missed something or there are sources that provide more information on the matter, but Townsend saying 'of course you can adapt it for the iPhone' almost sounds like he left money on the table.

If he isn't getting a share of the sales and didn't explicitly provide a license to release the ios app under different terms, then I feel it should be open source (at least the parts derived from the original).

This is false. Of course Michael is benefitting from the sales and the work he put in.

> Of course Michael is benefitting from the sales and the work he put in.

Based on... what? You don't see it as possible that when granting permission for the iOS adaptation he just assumed it would be freely available, like the original? (at the time of my previous comment, there was no response from the author of the iOS port)

>Based on... what?

Okay. Let me make sure sure everything is crystal clear:

- I found the game online via a tweet.

- Viewed source and saw's Michael's contact information.

- Emailed him and asked him if I could do a for-pay rendition of it on iOS and that I'd split profits with him.

- He agreed.

- I built it with his oversight/input.

- He get's a 50% royalty on all sales.

- And now? Well, Michael and I get to deal with ADR clones that just wrap the original via PhoneGap.

- And what do the clone say when we try to report them to Apple? "hey! it's open source!"

Thanks. I was merely arguing that based on the article, we don't really get clarification on whether Townsend was being compensated. When I replied to your previous post I didn't realize you were the author of the port.

I was basing that assumption on this part:

By [Townsend's] estimate, making one game a year that performs like A Dark Room would make it possible for him to quit his day job, but he’s unsure whether this whole experience was just a fluke.

It's worded in a way that makes it ambiguous whether he means that as a pure hypothetical, or something like "I made about a year's worth of income from A Dark Room, and if that were repeatable I could quit my day job".

If the copyright owner is the same one releasing the iOS version they can release it in any terms they want.

EDIT: it's explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7892535 -- TL;DR: the iOS port developer has an agreement with the original developer.

That didn't stop people from creating flappy clones.

When was flappy open source?

It wasn't. kiba's point was that just because it wasn't open source, it didn't stop people creating clones

Reply on news.ycombinator.com