I like this discussion alot, and so I'll add my two cents in.
I really like the term "Naked Engine" as that discribes to a "t" what I'm looking for. Other concepts came up that I want to elaborate on.
One of the more misuderdstood aspects of Open Source isthat people use it to *respect* other ideas, not to steal them. (Much to the shagrin of what Microsoft and SCO might say otherwise). The fact of the matter is we do not wish to steal anything. However we come to the barrior that is "Intellectual Property" (IP)
Now I'm going to lay my personal opinions down on the whole subject, there is a point, but it's best I lay my cards down first.
I'm under the opinion that the concept of "owning thought" is Intellecually void. I personally think the words "Intellectual Property" was invented in order bend culture to give property rights to ideas. Property, I believe, are things you can possess. Like chairs, forks, land, a car, and the like. You can even possess thought.
The problem with possessing thought it you have to keep it in your brain. Once it comes out your mouth, (when it is expressed, if you will), you have pretty much gave it to someone else. Then comes the delmma. How can you say something was stolen when you were not devoid of that taken from you.
Trademarks, patents, and copyrights serve as a balance. They are also incredibly selfish. Don't worry though, it's a good thing in this case. Trademarks, (I named this), Copyrights, (I wrote this), and Patents(I built this.), ensure that the one who orignally came up with the idea doen't have to keep them in thier head. It's a layer of protection to make sure that the creator is the one properly reconized.
To go furthur I have to introduce a legal term, called a "Tort"
A "Tort" is a "Twisting" of the norm. (The word "Contort" comes from "tort") For example, I came up with an idea and expressed it. That is the norm. However, say I came up with an idea and someone overheard and expressed the same idea and said it was thiers. That's a "tort", or a twisting of "fairness" where I am harmed and the other has artifically gained.
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks protect against torts. There is a real reason for thier existance.
However, IP has been bent into something it's not, which is to say property. I understand what's yours is yours. Protected by copyright or what have you. But when I have recieved, for example, a game, and I decide to tinker with it, your idea is in my posession. I know it's your idea and I repect that you want to be the one who all fingers point to. However, I'm still going to rip the damn thing apart to see how it works.
Why? Not out of mallace, but out of awe. I get to see, just for a bit, what it must of been like to arcitecture something like that. You want us to see the cathedral, and I want to look into the walls and see the mice. That's just how I am. It's still yours, I know that. No tort has taken place. Especally when I do it all by myself in my little darkend cave.
The problem starts when expression starts to grow and it's not from the "original mind". This is where torts start to appear.
The 3D chono trigger was doomed at it outset. Why? Becuase, in the end, a question would be raised on who wrote it, who named it, and who expressed it. The 3D chono trigger fails many of these tests, reguardless of if they wanted money for their work or not.
Part 2, the Naked Engine
Square is not an engine maker, they are a game company.
On the same side of the coin, Honda isn't an engine maker, thay make cars.
Of course, both of these fail the logic test. They both *OF COURSE* make engines, and have to in order to make thier product. Square, however, is not reconized for thier engines, at least not on the same level as ID software is.
Engine building is an odd sort. It's mechanical with lots of pistons and cogs. They are rather unattractive, and it's not untill you place square's artwork into the mix does it become "Something square did"
Open source programmers tend to seperate "Art" from "Function" and tend to focus in "Function". It's intresting that when "Art" becomes involved, that's when you tend to see torts. It wasn't so much the engine in the 3D Chono Trigger that Square had a problem with....
It was expression of the art.
There is an art to engine building too. However, this art isn't visual, and if we use our own cogs and our own pistions would be *our* engine. A Naked engine, that when left in the wild, all by itself, would be useless.
Code: [Select]
Code:
C:\jessie.exeJESSIE.EXE: No Media Found
You *NEED* Square's art, or make your own, but we arn't making a final fantasy were you get to revive Aries. That's why I oppose the idea of "hey, I can make new models for you.."
Models for what? For square's game? That's no better than making new content Ala the failed Chono Trigger experiment.
Now if you were to make your own end-to-end game set in space for example. I'm Sure square woudn't mind at all, reguardless of the engine.
You can't copyright *function*. You can patent it, and lucky for you guys in the EU, there is an explicit banning of software patents. Also, as far as I know, Square has no patents on thier engine in the U.S. Our expression of the engine is copyrighted, but fundementally differnt from Square's expression of it. The fuction is the same, but you can't copyright that.
Now I think I rambeled on enough. Keep in mind this is in no way legal advice, just on-the-table talk of how I see the world. Is this something I'm willing to go to court for (again?) well, I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.
What was I talking about again?
-Halkun
P.S. JESSIE == Jolly Enlightened Square Soft Interactive Engine. ^_^
