Bob's Game got realeased and Open Sourced!

[LuSimon]

Hi everyone!
Do you guys remember Bob's Game from back in 2009? The puzzle version finally got completed and is being frequently updated, if anyone wants to take a look at it the game is not only free at itch.com(https://bobsgame.itch.io/bobs-game-puzzle-game) and steam: )
As it also got Open Sourced for anyone that wants to port it for the pyra/pandora: https://github.com/bobsgame/bobsgame

Cheers

 

[lunixbochs]

Cool, I have an old java beta of this floating around. Glad to see a release.

 

[bzar]

It's not the RPG though. It's apparently a puzzle game which the RPG is about making.

 

[Kelvin]

Oh my gosh, I remember this! I wish the RPG had come out. And the nD... but hey, could probably build something similar with a Pi Zero and a 240p screen. XD

I remember the forums, too. Man, those were good times. They got me into SDL. I admit, I too got caught up in the dream of having a 10$ gaming machine.

 

[spud42]

downloaded this on steam last night... lost an hour of sleep over it..lol tetris on steroids! still not sure what i was doing on some of the stages...

 

[levi]

I don't think that should stop anyone forking it on github and making a release from that. Roberto might not take the Pandora specific patches, but we can't know that especially if they're conditional on compile time flags.

Pandora releases don't need publically accessible source code, that's just a nice thing to have. He could claim your repo was a breach of contract, but that would be due to his decision not to take it, not something you could know when making it, so I suspect it would be thrown out of court. As is, it might be simpler just to take down the repo if he complains - we can still distribute the binaries, at least according to that bit you quoted of the license.

 

[TrashyMG]

I almost have it compiled on the OMAP5 devboard, just need to spend more time fixing some dependencies as it appears the build scripts makes some bad assumptions on where path locations are.

 

[shaddim]

To any developers out there, please, never add such restrictions to your software !

I agree the restrictions currently are highly problematic and I hope only temporary (in the beginning he indicates that he is well aware of that!)

Also, this too makes me cringe :

Wikipedia is not your bitch, Roberto.

Yupp, but at least he tried! he uploaded a bunch of material and he seems well aware of how WP works... more than most other can say I guess. ;P

 

[WizardStan]

we can still distribute the binaries

not to be distributed independently

 

[levi]

Those words as quoted above relate to the source code I believe. Maybe the license has something to say about binary distributions, but I've not actually looked.

 

[WizardStan]

Sorry, missing from the quote is the word "except". Exception proves the rule legally as well as logistically.
You may not create a fork except for the purpose of submitting pull requests, as in the only permissible purpose of a fork is for submitting pull requests. It's pretty clear that if you're doing anything with it other than submitting patches for pull request you're in violation of his hand-written copyright. Building the binary for personal distribution pretty much squarely falls into the "other than for pull request" category as far as I can tell.

 

[b_o_b]

Maybe create a script that downloads the source and automatically compiles it on the Pandora? You're not distributing any source or binary then.

 

[levi]

Sorry, missing from the quote is the word "except". Exception proves the rule legally as well as logistically.
You may not create a fork except for the purpose of submitting pull requests, as in the only permissible purpose of a fork is for submitting pull requests. It's pretty clear that if you're doing anything with it other than submitting patches for pull request you're in violation of his hand-written copyright. Building the binary for personal distribution pretty much squarely falls into the "other than for pull request" category as far as I can tell.

My theory, which I perhaps didn't explain sufficiently, is that the sort of thing done for a pandora port would be almost indistingushable from other patches, and should be put in for a pull request. The repo would therefore not be in breach of contract at that stage. If he decides not to take those patches, because he's not interested in a port, I don't think that makes the branch repo invalid, and even if he gets it taken off github, devs will still have their personal clones of it.

It's a theoretical postion at present. I've no reason to suspect he might not want to take our patches. But then I don't know whether I'll actually ever really play this game - I've never heard of it before, and I doubt it's better than Heboris, or Mr Driller, or Super Foul Egg.

 

[robertpelloni]

Hello, I saw this thread in my analytics, thank you for mentioning it. I would definitely accept patches. That clause is there because I have had a lot of issues with griefers and I don't want someone to rename it and sell it on the App Store before I get a chance to port it. I will probably move to a full open source license once I have ports on all major platforms and I don't have to worry about that sort of thing as much.

 

[notaz]

So it's just to be able to ask the appstores to bring down unwanted clones? Obviously the bad people will ignore your license and clone it anyway, it's just the obscure platforms like pandora that suffer by not getting a port.

 

[Grench]

So it's just to be able to ask the appstores to bring down unwanted clones? Obviously the bad people will ignore your license and clone it anyway, it's just the obscure platforms like pandora that suffer by not getting a port.

Not benefiting is not the same as suffering... His logic for how he currently has it licensed sounds appropriate to me.

He found us and appears to be a good sort about things. Maybe we can get a Pandora &/or Pyra version of this yet?