Launched my iOS game as Open Source

http://github.com/seanhess/wizardwar#wizardwar

by embwbam • 13 years ago

83 54 13 years ago

embwbam7• 13 years ago

We will eventually monitize this app through in app purchases, but decided to launch it open source. I'm not sure we got the license right, but it seems like we can provide the source as an example to the community without losing too much.

Obviously it would be cool if other people got involved in keeping the game content fresh, but that might not be realistic.

I think it would be cool if more commercial applications were open source for learning purposes, but I know that might not be feasible for most products.

xfour• 13 years ago

Yea, that last sentence says it all, for learning there's nothing better than a fully functional application or game in this case. Thank you for doing this!

lucian19002• 13 years ago

It's probably more feasible on iOS than most platforms, since it forbids the users' freedom to run their own software. Thus, it is unlikely people will compile this themselves for distribution, since distribution would be so useless.

icefox• 13 years ago

Last I looked (a few years ago) ios forbid open source apps on the store, has that changed?

embwbam7• 13 years ago

Hmm. I haven't heard anything about that. How would they even know?

tjr• 13 years ago

I don't know about open source in general, but GPL'd software is in conflict with the Apple license. If you yourself are the copyright holder, then I (not being a lawyer) would imagine you would be free to license your software under both the GPL and Apple's iOS license, but you couldn't take someone else's GPL'd software and publish it on iOS, without their permission.

Which is one of the points of the GPL, so no big surprise.

yaeger• 13 years ago

You must have not been looking too hard as that was never true.

Apple has no problem with Open Source. It is just that a few Open Source Licenses have a problem with Apple. A small but important difference. Apple couldn't care less what open source license you use. But some licenses like the GPL forbid you from distributing your work in a place like the appstore.

embwbam7• 13 years ago

For those of you that have tried the game: any feedback? Would you pay for an extended single player game, unlockable wizards with a custom special spell, or some kind of supporter program that gives you early access to a forum and betas?

opnitro• 13 years ago

The one feature I would like is the ability to stat over when drawing a spell. I would probably play for an extended single player

gfosco• 13 years ago

In the future, you should avoid committing your Parse application id and client key publicly... You don't want other dev's piggybacking on your account quota, though it's not really a security risk by itself. Considering it's already there, make sure you've implemented Class-level security to protect your data. https://www.parse.com/docs/data#security-classes

jamesk_au2• 13 years ago

This game resembles 'Runic Rumble',[1] which uses the same concept but requires the user to draw different shapes rather than connect elements in a fixed shape.

The first thing I did after seeing this thread and looking at the repository was to download the game from the iOS App Store (using an iPhone 5). I would have paid $1 to $4 for the app at that point in time.

I 'mastered' the levels up to but not including 'Belgarath the Bold' in the space of about 30-40 minutes, and seem to have unlocked all the spells except for superman, hot dog and teddy bear. That was entertaining - and repetitive. Challenges remain ahead of me in the form of Belgarath and Fionnghal, but unless some exciting new aspect to the gameplay emerges during those challenges, I don't think I would pay for an extension to the single player game. If I'd watched someone else play the game instead of playing it myself, I don't think I would now spend the $1 to $4 I would have otherwise been willing to spend.

My disinterest in paying for an extension to the single player game means I don't have any reason to consider paying for unlockable wizards, custom spells, or forums and betas.

OK - I wrote the above before trying the multiplayer game. Having now tried the multiplayer game, I found that to be much more fun, and much less predictable. Would I consider paying something now? Maybe. I'd be willing to consider one or two small in-app purchases that add to the gameplay in some non-trivial way without unbalancing the game between those who've purchased and those who haven't. I don't think I'd ever have any interest in forums and betas.

The main gripe I have with the game is not something you can easily solve: my finger gets sore after lots of frantic swiping on the glass. (It was even worse with Runic Rumble.)

Good luck!

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/runic-rumble/id581952563

Edit: Just discovered 'superman'. Hilarious!

ianstallings• 13 years ago

I love this idea. You can still get to make money and the rest of us get to benefit and contribute. I like this particularly for games, where the content can not be as easily duplicated as say a business app. Creativity and all that.

adjwilli• 13 years ago

This is a great idea especially if you can monetize it successfully. I would buy it just go support it.

richkuo• 13 years ago

as someone learning iOS development - thank you

x0054• 13 years ago

I am just learning Objective C as well, and this is very helpful! Thanks!

archagon• 13 years ago

This is great and I hope more app developers follow suit!

nosefrog4• 13 years ago

"The final work shall not compete directly with Wizard War, in any mobile app store or on the web." - This line is too restrictive and keeps your custom license from being an open source license. The point of free and open source software is it protects your freedom to modify and distribute the software for any purpose.

Imagine if Microsoft Word distributed itself as "open source", with the exception that one can't use that source to compete with Word. You wouldn't really be able to do much with it, would you? Even simply distributing it to your friends would technically be "competing" with Word.

Siecje2• 13 years ago

I think he or she wants you to be able to add features and improve the game but not use it to make their own game.

nosefrog4• 13 years ago

Yes, and a license that codifies that intent isn't "open source". Open Source Software (as defined by the Open Source Initiative, the ones who came up with the term), was actually a re-branding of the term "Free Software". Open source software, as with free software, protects your freedoms as the owner of that software to modify, distribute, and study the code, with no conditions on any of those freedoms. What the author is doing is certainly commendable, and it would benefit us all if they took the next step and made their software fully open source.

embwbam7• 13 years ago

We are mainly distributing the source code so people can learn from it, but I would be happy if they used the code or even the artwork to make a substantially different game. I just don't want someone to just slap a different name on it and out-market us or something.

How could I word the license to give people more leeway while still preserving that intention?

toki5• 13 years ago

Just out of curiosity -- can you preserve that intention?

Nothing really stops me from making my own clone of your game, changing only the assets to be my own, other than it's prohibitively time-consuming (i.e. expensive) for me to do so.

If you release the code -- with any license on it at all -- and someone takes it, uses it, creates a similar game, and then changes the code in a sufficiently significant way to be able to claim that it's not "yours" anymore ... what recourse would you have?

tikhonj• 13 years ago

"Open source" has a very well-defined, widely accepted meaning. Part of this is that an open source license cannot restrict the purpose for which the code is used. This isn't making a value judgement on such licenses: it's just defining "open source".

If you actually want your code to be open source, you should use one of the common licenses like the GPL or BSD license; this makes life easier both for you and people who would use your code. Since these licenses are common, people know exactly how they work and are willing to trust them. A custom license like yours seems much riskier to use: for example, how is "competes with" defined?

You can license the code and the artistic assets separately. This is what Id does with its old Quake engines. This way the code is still open source in the strictest sense of the word, but somebody couldn't just resell your game as-is.

You can license the assets under one of the Creative Commons licenses. These have well-defined and well-understood terms that you can mix and match to find something that suits your needs.

logn• 13 years ago

Affero GPL might be ideal for you. It means that both network and local users of an app get the source code. So, maybe someone out-markets you, but the users still must get the source. But you won't necessarily get attribution if that's what you're after (CC is good for that).

coob• 13 years ago

Why not keep the code open and keep the assets on a normal copyright basis? That's what iD/Bungie do (did).

clarky07• 13 years ago

GPL is open source(shitty open source, but open source nonetheless), yet you can't use that code commercially.

Edit for downvotes: Perhaps I should have been more clear. As this is iOS code, you cannot in fact use it commercially. GPL code is not allowed on the App Store. Period.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

You can use GPL code commercially (and plenty of companies do), what you can't do is relicense it under a proprietary license.

nosefrog4• 13 years ago

You'd have to explain that to Richard Stallman, who wrote the GPL and also sold Emacs and other free[1] software commercially during the 80s and 90s.

[1]: free software and open source software are accepted by the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative as being pretty much the same thing (ie 99% of OSI-approved open source licenses are also FSF-approved, and vice versa).

ajross2• 13 years ago

A quarter century after this thing was published and we still read stuff like this on the internet?

gojomo• 13 years ago

GPL may make certain commercial models harder, but there's no "can't use" prohibition in the license.

The condition on all potential uses (commercial and non-commercial) is the same: your derivative source code must remain available under the same terms.

Mithaldu• 13 years ago

So if they're not even allowed to use the words "open source", what is in your opinion the correct term for this?

deafbybeheading• 13 years ago

Microsoft sometimes licenses things like this and it's commonly referred to as "shared source."

daveytea• 13 years ago

Thanks for giving the source code to the community!

For those that want to test the game but don't want to set it up in xcode, i compiled the code and uploaded to app.io: https://app.io/qj4Ofv

srcmap• 13 years ago

Cool project. Thank you!

BTW, I create srcmap database for this project @

http://www.srcmap.org/s/sl.htm#c=P&d=/proj_src/wizardwar/&p=...

Let's see how many users will hit the server in next couple of day or so. (finger crossing...)

jamesk_au2• 13 years ago

There is a player roaming the multiplayer arena named "Indefeatable" (sic) who appears to be able to cast the heal spell without any delay.

Perhaps an unintended consequence of allowing everyone to compile their own version of a multiplayer game.

(Defeating him/her was satisfying.)

wavesum• 13 years ago

I don't see the problem here. The way I understand open source is that the source is available and can be distributed forward.

I think it's bit troubling to define Open Source as "Free" software as defined by GPL. That's very misleading as it is very far from free since you are not free to distribute any parts of your software with any other license.

GPL is like legal virus.

Thumbs up for the OP. Good, altruistic effort.

belorn2• 13 years ago

So sad for you that one must follow the license. I guess it would be more "free" if people where allowed to ignore copyright all out. Music, and music software particularly.

Since people try to say that I live in a free country, I guess I should also be allowed kill anyone, torture, and do anything I would like to. How dare they have laws and at the same time say that I am free. Its so misleading. Truly troubling how they define it as "Free".

I guess in your world, BSD is also a virus, demanding that all advertising materials must include the acknowledgement that: This product includes software developed by the <organization>.

Launched my iOS game as Open Source

Related Stories