so, I want to know what nvgt games are publicly available, so I'll ask the community itself about what games which you like, that were made with this wonderful engine?
I don't know where to put it since all of the forums are about nvgt programming specifically, so I'll put it on off topic, move if necessary 
1 Like
Hi,
There is this nvgt_minigames repo, and simple fighter became open source. Those are just the 2 I could think about on the spur of the moment.
Just FYI, I've moved this to the game discussion category that was being created as you were composing this topic.
ok, I can say that I'm not going to use simple fighter code any time because GPL, but it's cool that they actually made it open.
and, the example minigames has no license.
It's probably possible to talk about it with both of these developers, I think in this case the license selections were possibly made more because of not knowing the available licenses or what should be selected as opposed to being serious about leaving code unlicensed or using GPL.
1 Like
My fav NVGT game is Crazy Party if we can count it
There is also Literary's typing race and Mason's endless runner
1 Like
Hmm, what's up with GPL? I was planning to release my code under it as well at some point.
yep endless runner is ossem!
So basically there is one very, very severe problem with the GPL. If you release your code under it, it means that the only people who can use it are those who wish to also release their source code in turn. So if you just want to release a helpful geolocater class for example but it's under the gpl, I can't use it in my commercial online game because I don't want to release the code for that game as it's closed source. In other words if you release your code under GPL, you're saying "hey since I released my source code, you need to as well!" Especially for game development where people wish to keep their games closed source sometimes, I'd avoid the GPL because otherwise the helpful code you released won't actually be helpful for people due to legalities.
1 Like
Ok sorry for the offtopic, if we want to continue this, and I find it pretty interesting to learn more aobut it, we might need to create a new topic. Anyway get it. Yeah of course it depends what code, in my case, it's a File Player/set of tools I want to make OSS, but I don't want that people just go copy it and, let's overdo a bit, make iit comercial. Ofc if people want they can use, idk, my sorter script include from there, but not just continue the entire thing closed source.
That's why I think gpl is ok in this case, or is there something, well, better?
Hi.
Indeed this is true. In any case my goal wasn't to make it unusable for the people. I'm sorry for the inactivities and lagg of lizense. I'll take care of it and will open a new topic when I think I'm done.
Sorry again, and thanks notifying me.
1 Like
Hi there.
I agree, we should possibely have a topic in offtopic (maybe not even), where we'll be informated about lizenses and can discuss about them.
Not that people could google by themself, but I think it actually would be pretty helpful for people knowing not much about it.
1 Like
Yeah if you don't want people to use your code in their closed source project, then you want the GPL indeed. If you want to make a utility that is convenient for everybody to use, such as an include where you are intending to just be purely helpful and give something to everybody that they can use commercially or not, you should just be aware that the GPL does not allow for that. So it's totally fine to use it if you do not want people to use your code commercially so long as you know the effect. It's just that some people don't care if their code is used commercially and end up using GPL anyway, thus disallowing commercial use of that bit of code even though they didn't actually care.
Indeed beyond this we can create another topic about the various marats of different licenses, probably in the general category since it's programming related.
1 Like
Per the rules, code that has no license is assumed to be licensed under The Unlicense, which is a public domain dedication. However, if you are concerned, you can always ask the devs.
Edit: Okay, so it does now have a license, I forgot about that. Please disregard.
Hi there @ samtupy. Regarding the license used in my game, I only chose it to be the way it is now because I don’t understand how licensing works in open sourced projects. I chose it in thinking that was the default license for all projects, but it turns out I don’t really have to have a license for it if I don’t want to. I’m not really sure what licensed people usually choose for their projects, but I may read more on that when I get the time.
You don't "need" to choose a license, but if you want anybody to legally be allowed to use your code, you need to do so. If you do not, nobody is legally allowed to use your code.
The reasoning for this is that, by default, when you create something, you retain all rights to it. Nobody can use it without your explicit consent. A license agreement (or a public domain dedication) is you agreeing that someone using your code for a certain purpose is okay. For a public domain dedication, you relinquish all rights in whatever it is you made, and are basically saying "anyone can use this for anything, and you don't have to ask me".
An open source license is a middle-ground between completely unusable and public domain. It says "You can modify and use this thing, but only if you obey these conditions". As an example, the zlib license says that you can do whatever you want with software licensed under it, as long as you agree that you won't misrepresent that you made it, you'll mark altered source code as altered and won't claim it as the original code, and you'll include the license in any source code distribution of the software that you make. By contrast, the Mozilla Public License (MPL) is a file-based copyleft, meaning it applies to specific files only. You have to distribute the source code in those files under that license, and make available that code upon request, as well as any modifications you make to them, but unlike the GPL it doesn't affect the rest of your project.
So... Yeah. Licensing is hard and complicated, unfortunately. The ZLib or MPL are very good choices. MIT is okay if you want to require people to credit you in all uses of your code no matter what that use happens to be.
1 Like
I see. So basically, licensing controls what people can and can’t do with your source code right? If you don’t have A license at all, then that means nobody is allowed to modify it in any shape or form, if I’m understanding that correctly? I didn’t think anybody would collaborate on my game, therefore I stuck to the license I gave it, but I can always change it if that ever changes.
There is also 'wheels of prio', a driving game, Cooky Craze (which is also open source), SideParty, and vfb