TGEA license requirements for team contributors
by Arcanor · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 07/23/2007 (8:44 am) · 10 replies
I'm working on a game. Aren't we all! I'm fortunate enough to have enlisted the help of several other folks who are interested in working on my game with me (www.arcanoria.com). We've been doing game system development, artwork, modeling, website work, etc. thus far, but no coding as of yet. Up until this past week, the game has been based on TGE.
I've just purchased TGEA and I'm hoping to increase the project's graphics capabilities for my artists, and also increase to a larger terrain size using atlas, since we're making a MMORPG having a large world. We've been very happy with L3DT, and our artists are excited about the ability to make normalmapped models, etc.
The question is this: who REALLY needs a license for TGEA, and who doesn't?
I will categorize the classes of users:
1. engine coders - clearly they need TGEA.
2. Artists - shouldn't be needed as long as they don't have c++ source code access?
3. level designers/scripters - maybe not, if they don't have c++ source code access?
4. game system scripters - maybe not, if they don't have c++ source code access?
5. players/testers - shouldn't need TGEA, wouldn't have any code access either c++ or script
My concern is categories 2, 3, and 4. I think they should not be required to have the license, since the TGEA demo comes with script code which is editable.
I've been researching these answers for some time now and I've gotten lots of different versions of "the truth" here. I'd really appreciate an OFFICIAL answer from GG if possible. Thanks!
I've just purchased TGEA and I'm hoping to increase the project's graphics capabilities for my artists, and also increase to a larger terrain size using atlas, since we're making a MMORPG having a large world. We've been very happy with L3DT, and our artists are excited about the ability to make normalmapped models, etc.
The question is this: who REALLY needs a license for TGEA, and who doesn't?
I will categorize the classes of users:
1. engine coders - clearly they need TGEA.
2. Artists - shouldn't be needed as long as they don't have c++ source code access?
3. level designers/scripters - maybe not, if they don't have c++ source code access?
4. game system scripters - maybe not, if they don't have c++ source code access?
5. players/testers - shouldn't need TGEA, wouldn't have any code access either c++ or script
My concern is categories 2, 3, and 4. I think they should not be required to have the license, since the TGEA demo comes with script code which is editable.
I've been researching these answers for some time now and I've gotten lots of different versions of "the truth" here. I'd really appreciate an OFFICIAL answer from GG if possible. Thanks!
About the author
www.arcanoria.com
#2
07/23/2007 (8:56 am)
The EULA lays it out pretty accurately, I'm not sure what alternate information you may have gotten is confusing you.
#3
Thanks!
07/23/2007 (9:11 am)
Frankly I feel that the TGEA EULA is confusing (and also self-contradictory), so it would be very helpful if I could get confirmation of my assessment above. Did I understand it correctly?Thanks!
#4
07/23/2007 (9:14 am)
What's contradictory or confusing about it?
#5
07/23/2007 (9:35 am)
Your points above are correct, because that's what the EULA says. I guess that's why we don't understand what's confusing, since you think you are confused, yet still got it right :)
#6
I was in the process of explaining my questions about the EULA, and will still do so here, just in case anyone else is having similar questions in their mind.
First of all, I'm not a lawyer! I think that "legalese" is difficult to understand for a layman like myself, even if it's perfectly written legalese. So maybe it's all just me being dense.
As for the EULA being confusing/contradictory, bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. ;) But here are a few examples, based on my limited understanding of things legal:
1. It seems to me that stating the license is non-transferable is contradictory with the fact that it's a "seat" license, which implies that it could be used by multiple people, as long as they aren't concurrent. How would this work?
2. Section 3-c-ii says you can't "reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the algorithms for the Engine", but all the algorithms are given since it's a source code license, so I don't have any idea what is referred to here. If I can't have the algorithms then what have I purchased?
3. Section 3-d says that I can't distribute the source code to an unlicensed party, but nowhere in the document does it clearly define what "source code" means. In fact, this section seems to imply (to me anyway) that the entire download could be considered source code, in section 1 where it says this: "relating to the use of the Engine source code shipped on hard media or downloadable from the Licensor website, www.garagegames.com, or affiliates." Clearly that's not what's meant, but it's never stated explicitly what is or isn't included in the term "source code".
I could probably find more in there, but the truth is that, again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe a court of law would find it totally transparent, but I don't. To me it seems confusing.
I'm sorry that I'm not understanding! I want to do the "right thing", which is why I'm asking. I just want to be sure that I'm not cheating GG out of its entitled revenues.
Anyway, thanks Stephen for your answer above. :) I don't know if my questions here have any merit, or if your legal department would have any interest, but I'd be happy to continue to discuss if anyone else wants to. Or not, since my original question is now answered. :)
07/23/2007 (9:44 am)
Thanks Stephen!I was in the process of explaining my questions about the EULA, and will still do so here, just in case anyone else is having similar questions in their mind.
First of all, I'm not a lawyer! I think that "legalese" is difficult to understand for a layman like myself, even if it's perfectly written legalese. So maybe it's all just me being dense.
As for the EULA being confusing/contradictory, bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. ;) But here are a few examples, based on my limited understanding of things legal:
1. It seems to me that stating the license is non-transferable is contradictory with the fact that it's a "seat" license, which implies that it could be used by multiple people, as long as they aren't concurrent. How would this work?
2. Section 3-c-ii says you can't "reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the algorithms for the Engine", but all the algorithms are given since it's a source code license, so I don't have any idea what is referred to here. If I can't have the algorithms then what have I purchased?
3. Section 3-d says that I can't distribute the source code to an unlicensed party, but nowhere in the document does it clearly define what "source code" means. In fact, this section seems to imply (to me anyway) that the entire download could be considered source code, in section 1 where it says this: "relating to the use of the Engine source code shipped on hard media or downloadable from the Licensor website, www.garagegames.com, or affiliates." Clearly that's not what's meant, but it's never stated explicitly what is or isn't included in the term "source code".
I could probably find more in there, but the truth is that, again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe a court of law would find it totally transparent, but I don't. To me it seems confusing.
I'm sorry that I'm not understanding! I want to do the "right thing", which is why I'm asking. I just want to be sure that I'm not cheating GG out of its entitled revenues.
Anyway, thanks Stephen for your answer above. :) I don't know if my questions here have any merit, or if your legal department would have any interest, but I'd be happy to continue to discuss if anyone else wants to. Or not, since my original question is now answered. :)
#7
As far as source code goes... thats the uncompiled code that you use to create your game, and I believe it's mainly the engine code that they are talking about. However you probably wouldn't want to include any source code or the torque script .cs files with your shipping product.
07/23/2007 (10:13 am)
Non-transferable means that you can't sell your license to anyone. With the commercial license you let others use the license (your employees for example) and when they leave your company you still can hire someone else to take their place and use that seat. As far as source code goes... thats the uncompiled code that you use to create your game, and I believe it's mainly the engine code that they are talking about. However you probably wouldn't want to include any source code or the torque script .cs files with your shipping product.
#8
Thanks for your reply. Here are some specific comments.
re: transferable - I'm talking about an Indie license (not Commercial), which still provides for it being a "seat" based license. How would that work, since the license is specific to me personally?
re: source code - The problem is that the term "Source code" is not defined anywhere in the agreement. It's arguable that it could also include the script code, art assets, music, sound FX, etc. I also agree that it "probably" just means the c++ source code, but in a contract that should be made explicit.
Also, I'm not talking about whether or not it's wise to distribute script code to end user players. I agree that you're right there about not wanting to do so. However, I'm talking about distribution to team members, helping to develop my game with me.
07/23/2007 (10:29 am)
@mb:Thanks for your reply. Here are some specific comments.
re: transferable - I'm talking about an Indie license (not Commercial), which still provides for it being a "seat" based license. How would that work, since the license is specific to me personally?
re: source code - The problem is that the term "Source code" is not defined anywhere in the agreement. It's arguable that it could also include the script code, art assets, music, sound FX, etc. I also agree that it "probably" just means the c++ source code, but in a contract that should be made explicit.
Also, I'm not talking about whether or not it's wise to distribute script code to end user players. I agree that you're right there about not wanting to do so. However, I'm talking about distribution to team members, helping to develop my game with me.
#9
That simply means that only one person (you) can use the license. You could install it on 15 different computers, of different operating systems, if you so choose, as long as only you are using it.
"Source code" is a pretty well defined industry term, but I guess I can see your point. Wouldn't hurt to have that specifically defined in the EULA, but it's not a requirement either.
07/23/2007 (10:33 am)
Quote:
"seat" based license.
That simply means that only one person (you) can use the license. You could install it on 15 different computers, of different operating systems, if you so choose, as long as only you are using it.
"Source code" is a pretty well defined industry term, but I guess I can see your point. Wouldn't hurt to have that specifically defined in the EULA, but it's not a requirement either.
#10
If you are going to cross all the other Ts but not dot all the Is...
08/07/2007 (1:36 pm)
Sure it is Stephen, but in the defense of the OP, there are two types of source code in Torque, the C++ and the script source code. Defining that "source code" applies only to the C++ source (i.e. .c* and .h* along with the Visual Studio solution and projects, etc.) and not the scripting code (i.e. the *.cs files) would be a good idea. If you are going to cross all the other Ts but not dot all the Is...
Quote:
"Source code" is a pretty well defined industry term, but I guess I can see your point. Wouldn't hurt to have that specifically defined in the EULA, but it's not a requirement either.
Employee David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
Documentation is behind licensee access, however. This is especially helpful to scripting staff.