UnrealED to Torque convertor - ( Unreal Tournament Editor )

#21 Is there any solid evidence that you can not use WorldCraft 3.3 for commercial use?

#22 Hi Bill,

See Joshua's post ten above yours...
The license has restrictions.
It may be difficult to enforce, but are you willing to take that chance if you develop a successful game using their editor in-part?

I'll say it again... we need to start the ball rolling on a licensee-only open source editor for Torque.

David

#23 why should it be licensee only?

#24 Hi,

To add to my above message, I just checked their 3.33 files and did not see any specific licensing agreement.

However, it does state in the documentation:
"... you can use to make your own maps for Valve Software's Half-Life."
It does not state a restriction, NOR an open license.

They also state "all rights reserved", and I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that means they maintain all rights not expressly granted within their documentation, so if it *doesn't* explicitly say you can freely use it for other non-HL projects, then legally you cannot, and so I'm not chancing it...

We *still* need to start on a Torque editor...

David

#25 Gotta agree with Jeff H. on this one. Making it "licensee only" undermines (fundamentally) the existing and established team organizational concept of Garage Games.

A TGE Specific Modeling APP would be great, but the GG guys have pointed out time and time again their very right-headed views on this - that sort of thing has to start with us.

#26 Jeff H.

It *should always* be licensee only.

The coding should be done as open-source only by TGE licensees, as opposed to a world-free open-source where anyone can contribute, forcing GPL or similar. The latter would require opening up the Torque code to the world -- then why bother paying GG your $100.

Anyone purchasing a game created with Torque, is buying a license to play that game, that license can include the game editor (they are licensed for both).

Otherwise, if the coding of an open-source editor is made GPL-license or other, and then the editor application itself is distributed GPL, what's stopping other people from freely taking all of the hard work done by others and not having to contribute financially or other back to the TGE community?

David

#27 Hi Mychal,

No it does not. See my latest post.
Apparently no one here understands licenses?

David

#28 You have to remember that contributing to the community is optional. Vae Victus Games (the people I almost signed on to work with) as well as the Full Sail people (among others) have been doing stuff with out giving anything back to the community.

Personally, I'd enjoy seeing it be a requirement but right now it's just optional with perks to those that do it (higher royalties)

#29 In these here parts, "licensee only" has a mighty particular definition - no need to assume anyone's ignorance David, and belligernetly insisting is no way to win anyone into a collaborative effort.

If what you're saying is that only peope who have licensed the engine should be allowed to contribute to this hypothetical editor taht's one thing.

But if you are saying that only licensees can use it, how I read your comment, that is of course another - what with moderlers being license exempt at present.

The ongoing efforts to enhance QuArK for our needs make sense for the QuArK project and for us. I don't see any compelling reason not to contribute to them.

#30 Mychal,

My apologies if I sounded offensive, that was not how it was meant, I was posing my comment as a generality since everyone seemed to be missing what I was saying concerning "licensee" and taking it considerably more "exclusive" than it actually is.
In my comments I did not stipulate "TGE Licensees".

You are correct, I was thinking that contributions to the coding should be open-source amongst licensed Torque users only. This shouldn't be a GPL project.

Similarly, only licensees should be allowed to use the Editor.
Now, to clarify this, I did not stipulate "TGE Engine Licensees".
Either it could fall under the same TGE license whereas likewise each programmer must license his own copy of the engine code, same goes for all modelers working on a project -- this *is* what you have to do with other modeling applications, one copy per PC/User. This should be no different. Licensing the Editor may be at a different fee than the engine, or even just a free license with use restrictions. Charging a small fee for the Editor may be some incentive for a small group to develop it.
Alternately, a new License could be Editor-specific whereas those using it are bound to its conditions of creating Torque-related or Torque-Game-related projects.

One of the reasons that Unreal is so popular amongst mappers is UnrealEd. QuARK, while nice, will never be a Torque integrated editor application.

I am willing to work on an Editor project, in fact I've been pushing for one since last fall. Are there any others with good programming experience who would also be willing to step forward and let GG know?

David

#31 Making an Editor GPL doesnt mean you would have to release the source code to torque. If you made the editor with torque then you could not GPL it as it contains torque code which is an incompatable license. But if the editor was standalone then it can easily be GPL and I see no reason it should not be. GPL states that if you use GPL code in another project then the other project must be GPL'd. Using content produced by a GPL product doesn't "infect" anything with the GPL. If so then we could not use quark as it is GPL.

So why would the editor need to be torque licensees only, because making it open source under the GPL we would have many more contributers as well as we could use GPL code from other open source projects.

Quote:Otherwise, if the coding of an open-source editor is made GPL-license or other, and then the editor application itself is distributed GPL, what's stopping other people from freely taking all of the hard work done by others and not having to contribute financially or other back to the TGE community?

The GPL license stops them from stealing anything. They have the right to use your code to their own extent but that is the point of free software (free as in freedom not as in $0) Why keep it closed source if it can help other indie developers out there? If you want a charge model then you could charge for it but you have to release the source code under the GPL. Quake is GPL'ed but you can't download, compile it and play it because there is no art included....but its legal under the GPL since the source is avaialable to download so legal owners of the software can make modifications to it.

-Tim aka Spock

#32 Well I always followed it like this:

Ben Morris wrote WorldCraft

Valve bought WorldCraft for use in Half-Life and then subsequently hired Ben Morris as a Valve employee. Morris has since left Valve.

Valve's lone game and its subsequent products were published by Sierra.

Sierra owned Dynamix, makers of Tribes 2.

Sierra is in agreement with GarageGames for the modified Tribes 2 source code being turned into Torque.

Now while it's true (as far as I can tell) that Sierra does not own Valve (despite rumors I had heard to the contrary) and therefore does not own WorldCraft, it's in Sierra's best interests that WorldCraft can be used in Torque projects (more $100 licenses and the revenues should something make it to the box channel).

Valve didn't sue Dynamix/Sierra when Dynamix made Tribes 2 shapes using WorldCraft. Perhaps this is a good sign.

Schnapple

#33 Hi Tim N.,

My personal feeling on this are a bit different than some I guess... please don't think I am faulting anyone for having a different opinion than mine.

If GPL were fine for all 3D Editors, then UnrealEd, WorldCraft, GMax, and most others would be following this as well...

I guess perhaps I am thinking on a bigger scale...
I foresee an integrated editor system more like UnrealEd than just QuArK (etc.).
TGEEd should have a TS Editor, Interior Editor, Image Viewer with ability to display alpha over a user-defined background, Texture Palettizer, Audio Auditioner, Resource File Packager, Script Editor with syntax and autocomplete, etc.
The TS/Interior Editors should be able to import 3DS, Max, and DXF.
Also, Keyframing, UV Skinning/Unwrapping, Fractal Plant/Tree Mesh Generation, 3D Painting on meshes, etc. would be great.
And the 3D Editors would also support all current and future Torque-specific features -- you don't get that on any current editor.

The various sections of this "editor" would of course be supporting Torque-specific data structures, most likely using portions of Torque-identical or Torque-compatible code to properly "preview" items as if in the TGE, etc.
So, in effect, by making this GPL public to everyone, you are in effect giving a large portion of Torque away for free, so why bother even licensing Torque then...

Again, just my silly opinion...

David

#34 Personally I like the idea of an all in one system. If its worth the time and if it will be ok resource wise...Id like to see them all written in torque. torque has a lot of already written code we could base all of this on. Of course if you went this route it would have to be licensees only contributing towards it. But everyone would benifit as it would be accessible just like the Mission editor and Gui editors are now. It would be the perfect development suite for indie developers. Like I said...I dont have enough knowledge in all the areas to know if this is practical.

The reason WC, UnrealEd, GMax, etc. does not use GPL is because they dont want their source code accessible by anyone except themselves. If WC was GPL'ed Then we would not have been having this discussion on worldcraft 3.3. There is a LOT of software that is GPL. The software this webserver is running on is GPL. (PHP, Im assuming its running apache also) If its running apache then there is a good change its running something like linux which is also GPL.

Disclaimer: I named a lot of GPL software...some of this might be lgpl but I believe its all GPL...I didnt look it up to make sure.

-Tim aka Spock

#35 Tom,

I don't think it would be in Sierra's best interest for another company not owned by them and simply licensing technology from them (GG) to be freely using a product developed by another company also not owned by Sierra who stipulates that their product is for use on their own applications...
It seems to me that it is not Sierra's call on who gets to use another company's software...
Otherwise, hey, my cousin Frank said I could use his copy of MS Office...

Tim,

I also prefer the idea of an all-in-one.
However, I would not integrate it into Torque itself.
The World/Terrain editors are integrated because you need to go in and play-test. This is not a requirement for meshing up models.

I guess I'll just be quiet now and go away... :-)

David

#36 I had just figured GG was tight with Sierra (why else let them have their multi-million dollar source code) and Sierra was tight with Valve, so it worked out.

Schnapple

#37 My reason for having them in torque is you have a WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) editor basically. You can say create a new player model...click Export..wait.wait...it pops up "Would you like to check this out rendered by the engine?" or some better phrased sentence. You click yes...it pops up a dialog in the editor and shows it in game. You do all your work in engine and it saves time. Same thing with buildings...you make it in the editor....export it to dif...wait ...wait...switch to mission editor and plop it down into the terrain...then exit the editors and run over and take a look at it.

-Tim aka Spock

#38 Look around in indie projects. Even non GarageGames stuff.

Vast majority use Worldcraft, and some use Quark.

If that doesn't make you wonder, than what about Tribes 2? That's a very well-known retail game that used WC without paying to use WC. The arguement on why they didn't get in trouble is "It never said we couldn't".

If Valve had the legal ability to sue (and get some cash, which every company wants. So don't say Valve has enough money to ignore this) they would have.

WC 3.3 seems like it will be fine to use, but Valve is kicking themselves for not wording the license differently!

#39 I know I said I'd go away... just one more... please... ;-)

Tom,
Most likely it is simply good-faith amongst companies as to why this was allowed. But good-faith is not always long-suffering...

Tim,
Integrated into Torque would be handy for the reasons you mention, however, the build would be rather large, memory requirements would be great, and not to knock the engine at all, but the GUI and Scripting were *not* designed with a full Max-like application in mind.
A subset of the Torque engine code for real-time previewing could no doubt be linked directly into the Editor, allowing you to preview your designs as if in the game itself -- a user editable preset terrain/water/sky set could be allowed, etc.

Matt,
Valve still maintained reserved rights to the application (it's not GPL etc.). This effectively means that anything not expressely stipulated as being allowed in a license, one had better not assume that they can do.
However, by not explicitly declaring limitations of licensing, it is more difficult for them to seek legal action. But, I wouldn't be willing to chance it if they happened to find a judge who ruled in their favor.

David

#40 One more from me, too.

Most of us, should we ever finish a game, will probably sell out ESD title for around $20. You can charge more, but most of us will go for the budget consumer (since we're saving so much by not making boxes, manuals, no shipping or retail stores, so the consumers expect to have savings passed on to them). After GG takes out charges like bandwidth and such, we get half of what's left - less than $10. And if you've got a team, you get to split that up.

Basically a Torque game isn't going to let any of us quit our Day Jobs, unless we have that rare Counter-Strike kind of success in the box channel. Until that happens, Valve would actually spend more money to sue us than we would have made off the game, not to mention the bad PR that happens when the perception is "suing your fans" (witness Metallica vs. Napster - yeah I know they weren't suing "fans" but you know). Couple all this with a weak argument (WC 3.3 had no EULA) and you've got a recipe for legal failure.

Still, I do like the idea of a community effort to make a level editor. Make it one of those "another project in the Torque workspace" dealies.

Schnapple