Close-sourcing the HTML5 exporter

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:08 pm

Hi all,

Thinking more along the lines of moneymaking, I think the HTML5 exporter should be close-sourced. The code all went up on SourceForge when the preview went public, but I think it should be taken back off. Here's why:

As you know we're still winging it as hobbyists but we like where this is going and would love it if we could go full time and make some money off it. That's good for the community too, because it means we can work fulltime on improving Construct 2, rather than the irregular patches everyone's used to.

Corporations and businesses are a really good place to go to make money - they have lots of it and regularly license software site-wide anyway. The problem with fully open source software is it makes it impossible to sell to businesses. Even if we tried to charge, the open source licenses mean they could just get one of their employees to spend half an hour building it themselves, then they've got a copy they can legally use.

If we close-source the HTML5 exporter, we can make sales to businesses. If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah. (Obviously the code as it is now is up there but it's still in alpha stage, and after a few months of development we'd be way ahead anyway.)

The editor can stay open source GPL - there's no need to close source it - but without any exporters it's just an empty shell that does nothing. However, that leaves the door open to more third-party exporters that could also be free, so there's still all the main advantages of open source. So in future there could also be a totally-free edition if somebody made another free exporter. It's only the HTML5 exporter component which would be closed source.

How does this sound? IMO, it's a win for everyone. You get a better product and we get to make some money.

Please don't go round saying we are definitely going to go closed source and start charging money! This is just an idea under consideration right now. Let me know what you think.
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,951
Reputation: 178,578

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:16 pm

It's good idea to get some of Cons2 closed source and still be clean when it comes to CT issues.
B
6
S
3
G
6
Posts: 219
Reputation: 3,013

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:21 pm

Sounds fine to me, especially if it helps you guys to be supported by your efforts so that you're able to work full time on construct. :)
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:25 pm

I voted yes. You guys will obviously need to make money if this is to have any future at all.
If your vision so exceeds your ability, then look to something closer.
Moderator
B
120
S
28
G
68
Posts: 4,844
Reputation: 48,289

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:40 pm

[quote="BROO":2se9tfl5]It's good idea to get some of Cons2 closed source and still be clean when it comes to CT issues.[/quote:2se9tfl5]
What CT issues? And what difference would being closed source make to that?? :?
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,951
Reputation: 178,578

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:01 pm

Back in time there was some legal actions threaten from CT about re-use of their coding ideas (ACE for instance).
B
6
S
3
G
6
Posts: 219
Reputation: 3,013

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:12 pm

[quote:d51dkhew]If we close-source the HTML5 exporter, we can make sales to businesses. If we did this, there would definitely be two licenses: an indie dev/personal use license, which would either be pay-what-you-want or really cheap so you guys don't lose out (I'm siding with pay-what-you-want), and the business/commercial/site license, where we make the moolah. [/quote:d51dkhew]

are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?
B
9
S
3
G
3
Posts: 366
Reputation: 2,301

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:30 pm

Can't vote because of my skin colour, but i vote yes. Nothing bad could come from you working full time on construct.
B
8
S
2
G
5
Posts: 744
Reputation: 3,288

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:31 pm

[quote:28co4kyd]are you referring to the source of the exporter or the exporter itself here?[/quote:28co4kyd]
There would be no source.


I think HTML5 would be a good choice, if that's the route you want to go.
There are a lot of pros, and cons.... obviously.
But , in the end its your choice. I think all we can do is point out those advantages / disadvantages.
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,352
Reputation: 66,759

Post » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:38 pm

[quote:2lvcrfkl]There would be no source.[/quote:2lvcrfkl]

I was asking whether we would also have to pay for the HTML exporter or just for the source. Rereading Ashley's post, I think he was referring to the source.
B
9
S
3
G
3
Posts: 366
Reputation: 2,301

Next

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests