[DeveloperX]

http://www.ccpssolutions.com/witchhunt/

Many have asked for it, and now its here!
The source to WiTCHHUNT has been released under the terms of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
Go to the downloads section now.

:D
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC

See my professional portfolio

[Mattias Gustavsson]

Ascii art, cool, I like it :D

But release it Public Domain instead, the GPL license sucks. ;-)
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[DeveloperX]

[Mattias Gustavsson]

Bah, I don't like the GPL. Either you give something away or you keep it to yourself. GPL is like trying to eat your cake and have it :D (It's your choice of course, and don't mind me too much, I'm just a grumpy old guy sometimes :D )


Anyway, the game looks cool :D
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[DeveloperX]

Hehe.

How far have you played through the game? Or have you?

Read this thread if you need to
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC

See my professional portfolio

[Mattias Gustavsson]

No, just tried it briefly, too much work at the moment, but it'll get better next week, so will give it a proper go then. I'll let you know what I think :-)

Maybe we should have a ASCII art rpg competition? :D Or has there been one already?
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[BadMrBox]

Njet, that has not been done yet.
_________________

[DeveloperX]

Ok, cool. I can't wait to hear more comments on it :)
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC

See my professional portfolio

[Hajo]

Just a brief comment on the license, GPL is usualy good enough because deemed compatible with a number of other open source licenses. Also it's the only open source licence that was involved in a law trial and there confirmed as valid licence.

Public domain has the drawback IMO that people who take the stuff don't even have to give credit.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

Public Domain is the only license where you give your stuff away.

What's so important about getting credit? I give my stuff away, and if anyone can use it for something, that's great. If someone can find a way to make money from it, that's great for them. But I wouldn't want to put all kinds of restrictions and demands on someone for having what I give away for free.

So many people are WAAY too protective about crap code which noone would use anyway, even less so if it's under a heavily restricted license like GPL. (Not talking about your code here DevX!). A lot of people makes the mistake of thinking just because they spent time on something, it has to be worth something.
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine

[Hajo]

I agree in a way. Code is very seldom taken. I think this is because most code is highly specific and difficult to reuse in another project.

Getting credit is something that deems me fair. But that sure is also an ego thing and a highly personal view.

I wasn't thinking so much about code, though, rather artwork.

[Nodtveidt]

Though is is technically deemed a science, I consider coding to be an art form and therefore the artists should be able to protect themselves. Of course, the GPL isn't the best option available; the only way to actually protect yourself is by way of legal copyright (just tacking your name onto your program isn't a legal copyright, and the GPL will NOT protect you). Otherwise, someone with a bigger budget and more legal wiggle room can easily swipe away your hard work, then claim YOU stole it from them...and they'll win.

I think I explained it before, but I'll do it again...licenses don't work. Why? Because they require enforcement. When you copyright your work, it is protected by copyright law, which is enforceable in most countries by the court systems (except places like China). However, there is no legal enforcement of the GPL or any other license aside from the ill-managed OSI. Even Microsoft's licenses are completely worthless in and of themselves. The difference is funding...Microsoft has the money to sue your ass into oblivion if you violate one of their licenses. That's called enforcement. The common Joe with his GPL can be exploited at will by anyone and there isn't a damn thing ole Joe Code can do about it.
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[RedSlash]

As of 1989 in the USA, all your work is automatically protected under copyright law from the moment of its creation. Thus, whatever license you use has no effect on the fact that you are automatically protected by copyright law.

When people think GPL offers them protection, they have misunderstood the concept GPL and what it means to be a license. A license is not "protection", it is a permission or terms of usage. This similar to a driver's license, which doesn't protect you against anything, rather it is a permission to permit you to drive on the road given that you follow all the rules of traffic. A license does not have to be written on paper, it can be verbally stated but having it written has better legal effectiveness in court. Protection is offered only through copyright, and you are already protected by that. When someone violates your license they are violating your copyright.

Furthermore, software licenses rarely affects the end-user or 99.9% of the developers who will never use your code anyways. We should definitely respect the rights of developers to choose whatever terms or licenses that works for them, after all, they're offering they work to you for free.

[Nodtveidt]

The 1989 addendum only works if you can prove you own the work. Otherwise, it has no meaning and is therefore not a legal copyright. By the law itself, it IS a legal copyright, but unless you can prove it, it matters not...you work might as well have been written on sandstone. That's why companies are so adamant about making sure you see the copyright notice, and why they ALWAYS have their products properly legally copyrighted. In essence, the 1989 addendum didn't really change much...especially in this day and age where big companies will always have the advantage over the smaller ones because of the difference in cash assets.

This site has some interesting information on it but doesn't cover the basic truths of how the US courts work these days (point 7 almost touches on it).
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace

[Mattias Gustavsson]

See, this is why I only do public domain :D Or, if it's something I want to keep the rights to, I don't publish that code at all :-)
_________________
www.mattiasgustavsson.com - My blog
www.rivtind.com - My Fantasy world and isometric RPG engine
www.pixieuniversity.com - Software 2D Game Engine