chg Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I'm not the copyright police and I hope people don't get annoyed at me for this observation but I was browsing the Phaser 2 sources on Github and I noticed the BSD license for QuadTree.js crediting Timo Hausmann and giving permission as long as the copyright notice is included, only when I check the minified version of the library their is no such credit - the phaser.min.js copyright notice (and the license.txt file for the project for that matter) only credits copyright to Photon Storm (and Richard Davey in the case of the license.txt file) I don't really want the minified files to get a couple of kilobytes larger with the full text of original BSD copyright notices for the likes of the QuadTree (and Pixi.js for that matter), but it strikes me that such contributions should warrant some mention in the distributable files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Nowhere in the BSD license does it state that the source code and the license have to be in the same file. We include it in the library (in the source) and the dist file is part of the library. If you then remove the dist file from the library the onus is on you to decide how to handle distributing any licenses with your game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chg Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 EDIT: I'm sorry, perhaps I am too tired right now, I don't think I understand. I feel you can't be suggesting every game dev that wants to use Phaser and particularly a minified version (whether that's the pre-"compiled" variant on Github or one they build themselves) should check each and every source file's comments to determine licensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 No, I'm suggesting that no-one needs even think about this. It's a non-issue. And if in some particularly rare edge-case you do need to include all of the license text with your game then yes, you'll need to determine which parts of Phaser you're using, and do just that. Given there are only 2 licenses (MIT and BSD) used through-out the entire code base, and BSD is only used in one file, it won't take very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chg Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 No, I'm suggesting that no-one needs even think about this. It's a non-issue. And if in some particularly rare edge-case you do need to include all of the license text with your game then yes, you'll need to determine which parts of Phaser you're using, and do just that. Given there are only 2 licenses (MIT and BSD) used through-out the entire code base, and BSD is only used in one file, it won't take very long. My understanding is that not a "rare case", but rather it's a requirement of using code provided under these licenses. The licenses suggest to me that one needs to reproduce the copyright notices as well as the terms, it's the copyright notices I guess I'm more concerned about here. The impression I get is that this is may not be a concern for your with your copyright and Phaser ie. you may be fine with people taking Phaser and using it without displaying it's copyright information anywhere in their "distribution", and perhaps the other authors might feel similarly too. I only queried it because the terms of the licenses used seem to suggest that this is not the case and is not OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts