Releasing Under Creative Commons?

I was thinking about what it would look like to release a game under a CC-BY-ND license. That would allow the game to be freely distributed and even sold as a physical cart by anyone that cared to, but would not allow modification of the game.

Obviously this isn't the way to go if you're concerned about making a profit off the game.

Assuming that your primary goal is getting your work out there and in a physical media, what problems do you all see with this approach?

I like foxes don't be a dick license. I'd say it should be one of those where you can release the ROM, but just make sure nobody makes carts for anybody until you've had your fair chance at providing them for the people who want your game. After that, if somebody wants a copy, sure anyone can make it. I don't want anybody NOT playing my game because I have no more copies, but definitely want to be the first to distribute.

I like it I also see how you could formalize that within the CC licensing structure. Release the ROM as Non-Derivative, Non-Commercial at first, then once you think you're done making and selling carts, re-license the ROM as CC-BY-ND, or even lift the Non-Derivative clause if you wanted to.

I may do that if I ever bring a game to market. Thanks 3gen!

Generally CC licenses aren't recommended to use for software, however, there is not many software licenses that are worded as simple and clear as CC ones.

I personally think that anything more restrictive than CC-BY would just hurt yourself and community. The thing is that the license won't stop people who won't care about licenses much (repro makers), and you won't do a thing about this, because it will cost a lot of money and time for you without any gain. On the other side, restrictive licenses could stop creative people to do something that you didn't even imagine. Like a cool mod of your game, or translation to a language that you don't know and would never translate yourself, or 'glitching out' video, or TAS (it is a derivative work), or something else.

I also think that things like 'bringing to market' and 'playing serious' in general is a plain wrong thing to do with games for retro systems. If you want to play serious and making money from your work is the priority (rather than just bring it to people), it is better to move on the modern systems.

Have you consider CC-BY-SA?

For software there is also BSD license, MIT license, GNU GPL, etc. Also, for software or not, you can also make things as public domain.

I don't particularly like CC-BY myself, although I don't mind if anyone uses it; I have no reason to use it myself, though. For my own projects I like GPL or public domain (and including source codes), or, CC-BY-SA or public domain if it is not computer software.

You could possibly also specify a time limit in the license, so it is initially CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-NC, and then becomes CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or public domain.

Perhaps you may even have different parts under different licenses, such as program under public domain and art/music/etc under CC-BY-NC or whatever.

I agree. This is one of the purposes of Free software licenses. You can specify that derivatives must have a different name (or other distinctive identification) so you know the difference, perhaps.

I also like to have be able anyone change and add new things, so at least this is what I do and I suggest others also do so.

I don't like GPL license because it certainly targeted for lawyers rather than normal people. It is really difficult to read, it is huge, and I don't want to force anyone to anything, especially to release under the exact same license (the viral part). Latter is the reason why I don't like CC SA either.

The X11 license and the 3-clause BSD License are fairly simple permissive licenses (like CC-BY), and the Sleepycat license is like the BSD license with the minimal extension needed to make it copyleft (like CC-BY-SA). Compare their length to the length of the CC licenses' "Legal Code".


So what should one do in order to build a portfolio and make enough money to move and search for a job, as a first step toward getting hired and eventually licensed to develop on modern consoles?

Great discussion folks! The idea that the repro makers won't care and I won't have the capitol for legal recourse is very compelling to me, because it's very true.



Not NES dev, that's for sure If you're wanting to get into the industry you can apply for jobs at established development houses. Although retro dev will be an impressive point on your resume, technology more relevant to that dev house's work will be more important.

As for going it on your own, you'll need capital. Anyone can develop for most major console platforms, you just need enough money (and proof of concept) to convince the platform owner.

*Disclaimer: I am not a professional game developer

[Split to this topic --MOD]

Could you publish the game on a emulator (whether or not you make a real cartridge as well)? Will it help at all, if someone will do that for you on modern system?

The GPL is a massive hack designed to pretty much cover about every single attempt to go against the FSF's idea. The Tivo thing was a fluke and still took over a decade for somebody to figure it out.

The viral thing probably is good for things like full projects where you really don't want other people to make anything with it without playing by the same rules. For things like libraries that are meant to be used as part of other programs it's probably better to be more permissive to not impose your own license onto other people, though then one could argue that anything more restrictive than the zlib license is a bad idea for those... It all depends on how you expect it to be used.

Also worth noting that the GPL isn't the only viral license. Pretty much anything with a NDA attached to it is going to be viral, since you can't do anything with the code at all without being given explicit permission by the NDA.


The two most important points are a degree (to prove you can stay long amounts of time coping with "boring and tiresome" stuff) and making games with a team (to prove you can work with other employees without ragequitting or something - yes, solo projects make you look bad in front of prospective employers). Yes, of course knowing modern technologies is important, but since it's a moving target it's probably more important being able to easily adapt to new technologies as you stumble upon them.

Not the easiest thing to do, but one way to deter repromakers (depending on their hacking skills) is create your own mapper or use an obscure mapper. Then when you stopped caring you could port it to a common mapper to more easily allow people/repromakers to make/publish your game if desired.

That might not even really be that necessary though. Perhaps merely publishing the game is enough. I mean, how many repromakers do you see with bootlegs of battlekid?
They could make them easily, but don't. Perhaps it's because they don't think they can compete with retrozone or because they know they'd have a lot of haters... I doubt it's because of legalities/licenses because that's not stopping them with everything else they produce. I guess they might see retrozone more likely to press charges than Nintendo/other copyright holders who knows.

Also, if you do release carts, I'd make sure to scramble and number each one. I am going to. Stops the game genie for the average user, and then makes it possible to blacklist known dumpers for the community.

By "scramble", you mean using a shuffle tool like the one I made for Concentration Room, right? I used that to wring enough entropy out of an NROM-128 game to make as many possible distinct PRG ROMs as atoms in the visible universe squared.

(See previous discussion about deterring prototype leakers.)

Freaking epic! I'ma give that a thorough read I'd probably never implement it as I tend to release for free anyway (well, my non-NES projects, I don't have a completed NES game yet), but damn man

I've made a tool chain for when I do get a ROM to put on carts that scrambles and marks any number of ROMS I request, but I wish I'd of known (and should have known) you'd of had something and been 10 steps ahead. This is a fun challenge, I'm going to have to work harder at seeing what I can do to make it hard for people to leak playable ROMS. Man, I wish I'd of known, variable shifting seems so much easier!

[On topic] But yeah, why doesn't anyone just type up a little paragraph on what they will be okay with happening with the carts? Aka like asking for permission to make them, what you DON'T want, etc?

The problem you run into there is with international laws and people being dicks. Clearly stating your wishes in plain English doesn't always mean those wishes are valid when it comes to the letter of the law in a particular jurisdiction (especially those with defined official languages).

I prefer using court-tested licenses so that I can clearly and legally state my wishes and assert my rights to a work. Without this it's fairly easy for a turd-party (pun intended) to come along, jack your work, publish it as their own and then file a grievance against you for violating their publishing and distribution rights to your work.

This sort of thing happened recently with GEMA in Germany. Due to the laws and regulations regarding published music in Germany, GEMA claimed damages against a group that published Creative Commons licensed music. The courts ruled the GEMA may assume they own the distribution and publishing rights to any audio track and may demand damages from perceived infringes without due process. The party in question must immediately pay reparations, and may then appeal to get their money back.

German News Article via Google Translate

So with all that BS going on in the world, I'd like to express my wishes in a way that's at least legally clear, even if the courts of a specific country choose to flat ignore them.

Also not a lawyer

I've put some of my Atari 2600 games under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Basically, I'd love for people to learn from my source. Also, free homebrew is awesome. However that doesn't mean they get to call the game itself theirs. Credit where credit is due.

That was the spirit of the suggestion. I'm glad to see there are other homebrewers that think the same way

Of course, no one license is perfect for every situation.

I once developed something according to an artistic types specifications. My only request was a physical copy of the game. The game's been complete for months and haven't received anything yet. So far it's been sold at a convention, put for sale at a retail video game store and offered online via a web shop. What if I was a less patient man? What if that artistic type was also the fly-by-night type? I'm OK with waiting but am also aware that the license I chose doesn't really help in these situations.

So, the closer you get to money being involved the stricter and more selfish the license has to be. I think.