Hush! You need to experience it for yourself to know that 
To note, he wasnât talking about the fork here, he was talking about turning the regular Blender project into a giant BGE game (which the reality is being that it would be a lot more work than simply building a 3D app. into an existing FOSS game creator that already has components missing in Blender such as mobile compatibility).
I am actually a bit more supportive of the fork itself, in part because it could become a repository of code that could be ported over to bring about desperately needed improvements to the regular BGE.
Itâs more that it uses Blenderâs code - Blender itself doesnât use the BGE codebase. Therefore, by exposing the appropriate data / tools from Blender, it could become standalone.
I veered off topic for a second, about a way to use a api to build icons that then link to code, performing 3d data manipulation in a game engine, similar to how blender can operate on data, It sounds silly until you think about it,
A physics engine detects what youâre mousing over, and defines the behaviors the mouse will do by gathering data from the moused over object.
Side note, writing a input control.systen that works this way would also be nifty,
Mouse over and keyboard press sends the keypresses into the mouse over object, and interacts with the mesh etc this way.
Thanks goose for the answer about stand alone ability.
Perhaps in the long run, the best path for the BGE is to have it as a standalone application combined with improving Blenderâs ability to work tightly with game engines.
Then instead of just the BGE, Blender can have a similar integration with Godot, Unity, Unreal, Cryengine, and others via addons which would give an incredible freedom of choice for game developers who want to use Blender as an asset builder and level creator. It also means the BGE team can no longer float on the idea that people will use the engine due to its integration with Blender, so it will have to see constant development to compete (Iâm guessing the idea would be that UPBGE would be the standalone solution since itâs actually seeing constant activity).
Even better for UPBGE devs, if they can find a way to deal with the GPL limitations, it can also see a level of integration with the commercial 3D apps. as well (so you would have a larger audience than just Blender users).
A .blend is program output, and a exe is gpl,
There is no issue with bge games, unless the game is linked to a exe, (double click exe opens your game directly)
If you open blender player, and blender player opens a games directory, and you choose one, the game is not gpl.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#MereAggregation
data etc is copyright anyway not software.
If there are no Static bindings it is not linked,
If a generic system that could open any bge game were used
(like a command prompt or a file selction menu) then the two items are not a linked program,
Unless all .blends are gpl (program output)
This means you choose your own licence for the .blend/data
I want to release wrectified GPL anyway.
You always mention that. But thatâs not allowed on all platforms. There are other difficulties, like using commercial code with it. Even if there are solutions for that, the developers need to pay special attention to it due to the license.
The GPL license is for sure one of the factors why the Blender Game Engine is not more extensively used.
Youâve been told this numerous times, BPR.
If the game has Python scripts in it that work with the BGE API, they are GPL. Period. It matters not if they are bundled in the EXE file or otherwise. As the script is a derivative of the GPL licensed API, it too must be released under the GPL license.
Secondly, and more importantly, how you personally intend to use the BGE (or itâs alternatives) has no bearing on whether peopleâs points about the GPL are valid or not. The point of a game engine in Blender isnât just so BPR can make & distribute his games. It is so Blender users in general can make and distribute games. The GPL is a hindrance for them even if you personally wish to give your time away for free.
Ok, just looked it up,
Import bge does make it gpl
As bge is a gpl module,
About my code and trying to steal it,
That is the idea, go ahead its all just vector math
And clocks and timers, I donât care.
That said, I wish it were LGPL.
There is no way to expose the data (gameObject, scene, etc) to use the engine without these is impossible as far as I know.
If someone wrote a api that was LGPL that did these things, would that fix the problem?
I donât use anything from bge that is crucial except scene, and get controller
but I use mathutils all the time,
Is there a LGPL lib that could replace it,?
(not for my own project)
Now I understand why they coded it with a godObject.
At the end of the day, the details donât really matter. The GPL gives enough of an uncertainty that many decision makers donât even seriously consider the Blender Game Engine. Making statements that the GPL is not a problem is simply wrong.
When it is about licenses, it is not possible to rely on forum posts and even less when the subject is uncertain or controversial.
So what about if people gave away 95% of what you needed to make a game?
if you did not need to code much, would you care if it were GPL?
if those systems were polished and documented?
if you got a huge pile of resources for free from a community would you not also want to give back?
if your code is GPL, and your assets, story, designs, and gameplay are all copyrightable, then they canât really clone your game with just your code, the rest is still infringement, they would need to rewrite the whole game right?
Thatâs my last reply on that subject, because it is too off topic for my taste.
The GPL is still very relevant and it restricts its users about what they are allowed to do that. Good documentation wonât make that go.
This has nothing to do with the GPL. If I want to create a commercial game, I donât want to give my assets and scripts to the community. At least not initially. But because of the GPL, thatâs pretty difficult. I would need to consult a lawyer and even then, there are platforms to which I wouldnât be allowed to publish because of the GPL. Even if I implemented the support for that platform on my own and I would be willing to give it back to the community, it wouldnât be legally possible.
Let me just make it very clear: Stating that the GPL is not a problem for the Blender Game Engine is wrong.
Hi,
If you use GPL in a project, the entire project needs to be compatible with that license.
Same limit is for commercial licenses. If you use Autodesk libs or Crysis engine in a game, you are way more limited in distributing.
Further I wouldnât worry now. Make games and try to find a market for it. And when you make money, hire a consultant to sort out the legal aspects.
-Ton-
Also, GPL applies to the code, not the assets.
1 Like
The dumbest thing I havenât heard in a while. It means that if I use Blender, which is under GPL, whole project (code, assets, etc.) have to be covered under GPL. Itâs 100% incorrect. If you use UE4 and Blender, none of the project has to be under GPL. If you use BGE and Blender, then only code needs to be under GPL, not the art.
ok first off, this is from Ton directly,
and second off, I am pretty sure he means if you link to GPL code
Ie *Import bge, and Import mathutils,
Just loading a .blend does not make it gpl, running a python script that links to libs that you distribute does.
and by project - He means code
if you distribute a .blend with python in it that links to GPL code, that python has to be GPL. Game assets like models, sounds, images, story, character concepts etc-> are not covered under GPL.
converting the bge licence to LGPL would fix this (and mathutils)
with these two modules, you have access to 95% of bge resources.
Using Unity or UE4 will fix this
From https://www.blender.org/support/faq/
So I can make games without having to worry about the GPL, right?
Games created in Blender (.blend files) are program output and therefore not covered by the GPL. You can consider them your property, and license or sell them freely.
With stand-alone games however, any data that is included inside the actual stand-alone executable is covered by the GPL. If this is a problem then you should set up the stand-alone player so it reads from external .blend files. A common practice is to include a âplease wait, loadingâŚâ scene in the standalone, and read level files externally.
The Blender standalone player or the game player can be sold commercially too, but you have to make it available under the GPL conditions.
Therefore no, your game will not be under GPL unless you bundle it inside the player. If you distribuite the player with it then you have to do it under GPL, but only the player, not your game, nor the Python files (wich by the way are also source code). Actually if your python code is inside the .blend that it doesnât matter if it links or not, it is still inside the .blend and therefore the BF will not complain abut it (since they say that .blend files are program output). Actually there has been no cases of BGL infiringment on blender or BGE, so even less reasons to worry.
As Ton said, âFurther I wouldnât worry now. Make games and try to find a market for it. And when you make money, hire a consultant to sort out the legal aspects.â Wich I interpret it means âNobody cares about your game and nobody will take you to court becouse of its license, if somewhat you manage to make an AAA game in Blender then you will have enough money to pay someone that takes care of any license problems for youâ.
And last but not least, you can distribuite your game without distributing Blender with it (BGECore Launcher does that), wich dynamically links to any compatible BGE library it founds in the system, so technically it may or may not link to a GPL library, it all depends on what the user has installed.
EDIT: In this last scenario, where you are not distribuiting BGE with your game, BGE itself is considered as a system library and therefore it doesnât efect your game in any way (as GPL3 section 6 specifies). Therefore even if the Blender Foundation wanted to sue you, you would still win.
Using Unity or UE4 doesnât allow me to make a game in Python, wich is the main reason why Iâm still using BGE. Nor they work very well in linux, that is another reason. They may be better in a lot of aspects than Blender, but not in the ones I care.
1 Like
soâŚ
What does it do that the normal version of BGE doesnât?
I thought one of the main selling points of BGE was itâs tight integration with blender itself
Itâs a fork (a copy), it does the same + some bugs fixes and improvments. Itâs integration with Blender is also the same than Blender has.