DragonBox OpenSource Coding Competition - Rules (DRAFT!)

[_wb_]

It's called the OPEN Pandora, and that's not because the hardware is open (which is not the case). It's because the software side of the project is Open, which means you can pretty much do with it what you want, no DRM stuff or other kinds of chains. That freedom of course includes the freedom to create and release closed-source software with or without copy-protection or other kinds of DRM. But in my opinion, that's not really the spirit of the project, and I think it's a very good idea to demand the sources to be released. As foxblock pointed out, this requirement could be too weak, and perhaps it's best to add an additional rule saying that the license must at least allow the source to be used for porting to other platforms.


About the judging: perhaps the best system would be a mixed jury/community vote system, in which both count for half of the points. The jury would of course also consist of community members, but in return for their vote getting more weight, they would have to promise to test all submissions in quite some depth, and maybe even have to motivate their vote with an explanatory text or small reviews. The jury doesn't need to be the same for all 4 categories. And of course you can't be in the jury if you submit something in that category (but you can still vote in the community vote).

 

[Amnykon]

With only a two month window for programming something will result in prototype games, which will be far from finished. I would recommend a yearly competition rather than competitions with only two month warning. Because I think this will only end in unfinished games, I decided to add another reword to the winner, though I am adding some rules for this. The reword I am adding is that I will contribute to the highest ranking program that falls under my additional rules after the competition. I get to pick which out of the four categories. This way at least one program will not be abandoned after the competition.


My additional rules are:


Programmed in c.


Licensed under GPL version 2 or any later version.


Easily compilable to Linux.


I know I should not add my own rules to the competition, but I am supplying a reword, so I think It is my prerogative. Please feel free to ignore the added rules, if they will get in the way, just remember that not following them eliminates it from this reword.

 

[iprice]

And what is this extra prize you are offering that creates more hoops to jump through?

 

[TrashyMG]

My additional rules are: Programmed in c.


Licensed under GPL version 2 or any later version.


Easily compilable to Linux.

I don't like those additional rules.. It limits the freedom of the developers.. I may want to make a python application..

 

[erico]

And If I participate, it will be with GLBasic...I guess It (these @Amnykon rules) would not fit me.


edit:typos...

 

[EvilDragon]

The idea of having the source code included was so that ports would be possible.


If a dev only releases a Caanoo version, it could be ported by someone to the Pandora, the Dingoo, the GP2x or whatever.


If the code is closed and the dev doesn't want to port it to another system, this would be a loss.


If too many devs have issues with that, I can add the suggestion to include the source but won't force anyone.


Would that be better?


Also, if you want judges, this should also be possible.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

I highly prefer open source work.


I don't care about judges as long as they don't send me in jail.

 

[iprice]

If too many devs have issues with that, I can add the suggestion to include the source but won't force anyone.
Would that be better?

Yes, this would be better - that way if people want to give their source they can.


Personally, I don't want to give away my source code (as I may want to release my games commercially at some ppoint), but I am happy to port my games to multiple systems (I recently released 9 games for the Caanoo that I had previously created for the Wiz and GP2X). I also created Hallowian for the Caanoo and recoded that (the screen res required extra working) for the Pandora. GLBasic makes it fairly easy to do, so I'd rather produce several versions of one game for multiple systems than give away my source so that someone else can do it. Plus, GLB code isn't particularly useful outside of the GLBasic environment - you'd have to convert it into C/C++ or something else to make it useful on other platforms.


And at the end of the day, the "make it open-source" rule could deter entries - I know that I'm in two minds, and I'm sure others are too. Isn't it better to have plenty of new games and apps for the Pandora/GP2X/Wiz/Caanoo that are closed than a few open-source ones? Devs should not be obligated to give away their hard work - it should be optional.

 

[Amnykon]

I just want to help polish one of the programs. I wasn't very clear what the reword is. I will add 10 features to the highest ranking program in one category that follows my additional rules. I will pick which of the four highest ranking programs. This is in addition to the other rewords.


The reason I added the additional rules are:


Programmed in c.


It is what I know, but I am now extending it to java and c++. It will be good to expand my language base.


Licensed under GPL version 2 or any later version.


I agree with the licence and it just would not make sense to add the features to a proprietary program.


Easily compilable to Linux.


It is what I will be working in.


To some this is a valuable reword, but if someone doesn't want it, they may wave it the reword in which case I will choose the next highest ranking program.


If you want to use python, I do not want to stop you, please don't add my additional rules to the main rules.


I am not going to work on 4 separate programs, so I am picking the one I want to work on. I am probably going to pick the original game, but I will need to see the other programs.

 

[erico]

If too many devs have issues with that, I can add the suggestion to include the source but won't force anyone.
Would that be better?

Yes, this would be better - that way if people want to give their source they can.


Personally, I don't want to give away my source code (as I may want to release my games commercially at some ppoint), but I am happy to port my games to multiple systems (I recently released 9 games for the Caanoo that I had previously created for the Wiz and GP2X). I also created Hallowian for the Caanoo and recoded that (the screen res required extra working) for the Pandora. GLBasic makes it fairly easy to do, so I'd rather produce several versions of one game for multiple systems than give away my source so that someone else can do it. Plus, GLB code isn't particularly useful outside of the GLBasic environment - you'd have to convert it into C/C++ or something else to make it useful on other platforms.


And at the end of the day, the "make it open-source" rule could deter entries - I know that I'm in two minds, and I'm sure others are too. Isn't it better to have plenty of new games and apps for the Pandora/GP2X/Wiz/Caanoo that are closed than a few open-source ones? Devs should not be obligated to give away their hard work - it should be optional.

+1

 

[dreamer]

I hope to re-kindle my Puredata-porting-efforts and maybe make a prototype gpio-interface based around that


(but first the mailman needs to hurry up exchanging Pandora's between ED and me <_< )

 

[Rockthesmurf]

One issue I have with open source if that I sit on top of a code base which has been generated by paying monthly wages to developers. It is already exceptionally hard to make a living as an independent developer, I personally feel if we gave all the source for everything we do away, it would become even harder. I guess this point could be argued both ways, but this is my belief at least.


So, if I wanted to enter the competition, I'd have two options:

• Open source everything we have done, make the game using our engine/frameworks, submit to competition
  
• Work on another code base specifically for the competition
  

I think I have already outlined that the first point is not really feasible, the second however is feasible, however it would mean instead of spending time trying to get a little game together, I'd have to spend at least a chunk of the time writing similar code to that I have already written.


At the same time, I totally get why having this competition open source only makes sense, I like the idea that once the game/application goes out there, it is in public domain and can be ported around freely.


Anyway, I seem to be working every day of the work on the day job anyway, so it is doubtful I'd be able to enter either way. The only project that comes to mind... is... that I was working on a Monopoly game for the Zodiac a number of years ago, unfortunately it never quite made it out as a proper release. However, that project was fully open source:


http://trac.assembla.../zodiacmonopoly


It appears I uploaded both the source and data, so I guess I could take another look at that. From a quick look over the code, it was all very Zodiac orientated! It was also rather bad, one of the first projects I coded up properly I think. I'm sure I did actually make port of it at some point onto PC in a much more finished state, no idea where that source ended up though I've added a few random graphics in the spoiler!

Spoiler

Board

Some characters

Steve

 

[Nilsnsn]

forcing open source has it's pros, as some already pointed out and i think the community would benefit more from them. on the other hand this would reduce the number of entries (for good reasons). So why not alter the prizes depending on the type of entry and give a bonus, if the source is included or the other way round, reduce the prize if the source is missing?

 

[iprice]

Prizes should be judged/based on the quality of the entry - not whether it includes source or not.

 

[WizardStan]

Generally speaking, it's rude to ask a developer to release their source code. This isn't a general case though, it's a specific contest with specific goals, notably targeting an open platform. I don't see any reason why some open source license should not be part of the requirements. It's a competition, it's supposed to be for fun, and if you're worried about people stealing your program then I propose that you are taking it way too seriously.


Go into the contest thinking "I want to do something fun" and just do it with the knowledge that you'll be releasing the source at the end. If you go into it thinking you'll create the next big commercial success and therefore don't want to release the source to said commercial success, don't enter it, or make something else.


Other possibilities include making a tech demo, small and fun but incomplete, releasing the source to that for the purposes of the contest, and then actually fleshing it out as a full game separate from the contest. There are lots of options open to every developer to engage in the contest.


So to recap: the intent of the contest is to target and promote open consoles, allowing closed source entries feels contrary to that intent, so I have no qualms against making a source release a requirement. If you suddenly come up with something amazing that you really don't want to release the source to, shelf that idea and come up with something else; it's that simple.

 

[iprice]

But you can provide software for multiple targets (via the compo) without releasing your source too. I do, where it has been practicable to do (ie little code changes required).


As for commercial success - an app only has to sell 300 copies to earn more than the prize fund in any given category, which isn't a great deal, but is still more successful. And that money can be spent anywhere, not just in one place.


We are developing to support the Pandora, that's why we're all here. But supporting the Pandora (and other open source handhelds) doesn't mean we should be forced to go give up something that could be valuable to us.

 

[WizardStan]

We are developing to support the Pandora, that's why we're all here. But supporting the Pandora (and other open source handhelds) doesn't mean we should be forced to go give up something that could be valuable to us.

No one is forcing you to give up anything. You don't have to enter if you don't want to.


To get to the heart of what I'm trying to say I need to know one very important thing: do you believe that EVERYTHING you write necessarily has to be closed source? Do your principals demand that you never release your source code?


If the answer is yes then we are at an impasse: I do not understand your opinion, I probably never will, but you are welcome to it.


If the answer is no (as I suspect it is) then the followup question which should be thought provoking is "why not here?"

 

[iprice]

Why not here?

Is upto me.


I don't have to enter the competition - you are quite right.


I don't have to support the Pandora, GP2X, Wiz or Caanoo.


I don't have to keep my source code closed.


But if I wish to, then that's upto me. If the rules forbid that, then I will either obey the rules or not enter. I am already busy on a free project for another member here. But it's upto me whether I choose to enter or not.


I don't care if you understand my logic/opinion or not - I don't have to rationalize it and I'm not here to convince you to do something you don't want to do either.

 

[Scntrblob]

I don't think you should force anyone to go open source, even if I would prefer it as well. That's a little like waring for peace.

 

[Farox]

I don't think you should force anyone to go open source, even if I would prefer it as well.

Me too...but why not add a section for closed source app/games ?