Re: Don't release the code yet
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:48 am
Interesting responses. Some quick (so maybe not perfectly worded) reactions:
1. You say "collective ownership," I see "tragedy of the commons." Unclear ownership -- and that's what diffuse ownership would be -- leads to poor use of resources because no one feels the responsibility to shepherd those resources productively.
In the specific case of LT, I think the only minimally workable option like this is to explicitly label everything public domain, with the additional proviso that nothing built from that code may be called "Limit Theory." That doesn't get you a workable, sellable LT (though a game inspired by the LT code is possible), but it would at least let anybody who wants to study Josh's code (and then roll their own) do so.
2. I may be imagining it, but I feel like I'm maybe hearing a faint moral tone to "release everything to everyone," as though there's something ethically dubious about Josh assigning his code to a person or group of his choice.
If so, I disagree with any such view. None of us own the LT code just because we threw some entirely speculative money at the LT Kickstarter, any more than we own the code to Skyrim because we licensed the right to play it from Bethesda. It's Josh's code. Whether he dumps it or assigns it or anything in between, zero moral obloquy pertains to him. He owns the LT code, and he can do whatever he wants with it -- and that is not just an "is," it is an "ought."
3. My suggestion that Josh officially assign the code to one person or group is based on my wish that a version of LT is released. A playable game is my primary interest (beyond Josh's well-being). If something else was my primary interest, such as encouraging picking through Josh's code for individual snippets of coolness, then I also might endorse just dumping the code for whoever wants it. But that's not my primary interest; what I'd like to see is an actual, playable game that implements as many of the components of Josh's original vision as possible, because that game would be awesome.
And so I endorse Josh assigning his code to one person or group because I think that's the most likely pathway to achieving the goal of completing a playable LT-lite. There's a reasonable counter-argument that having multiple groups trying to build a playable LT-like game increases the odds that one of them succeeds. But the rebuttal is that making the code available to everyone would potentially divide programmer talent among competing groups, and could lead to arguments -- some possibly legal, because humans -- about whose game is the "true" LT successor.
Also, suppose a single team tries and then themselves also conclude they're unable to succeed. Nothing would stop them from saying, "Well, we tried and failed" and then releasing the code to everyone. But the inverse of that doesn't work; once the code's been handed over to the world, it is no longer possible to focus development resources within a single team.
So, again, I'd look with extreme disfavor (for whatever that matters to anyone) at any hint of a suggestion that there would be anything morally or legally wrong with Josh turning over his code to one person. That said, if he's absolutely convinced that no working game, not even a subset of LT, can possibly be made by anyone from the existing LT code, then I'd support a simple world-release. Otherwise, I'd like to see something like LT get made, and I think assigning the code to one person/team is the best hope of accomplishing that goal, bearing in mind that they can dump the code to the world if they also independently conclude (rightly or wrongly) that no game can be made from it.
1. You say "collective ownership," I see "tragedy of the commons." Unclear ownership -- and that's what diffuse ownership would be -- leads to poor use of resources because no one feels the responsibility to shepherd those resources productively.
In the specific case of LT, I think the only minimally workable option like this is to explicitly label everything public domain, with the additional proviso that nothing built from that code may be called "Limit Theory." That doesn't get you a workable, sellable LT (though a game inspired by the LT code is possible), but it would at least let anybody who wants to study Josh's code (and then roll their own) do so.
2. I may be imagining it, but I feel like I'm maybe hearing a faint moral tone to "release everything to everyone," as though there's something ethically dubious about Josh assigning his code to a person or group of his choice.
If so, I disagree with any such view. None of us own the LT code just because we threw some entirely speculative money at the LT Kickstarter, any more than we own the code to Skyrim because we licensed the right to play it from Bethesda. It's Josh's code. Whether he dumps it or assigns it or anything in between, zero moral obloquy pertains to him. He owns the LT code, and he can do whatever he wants with it -- and that is not just an "is," it is an "ought."
3. My suggestion that Josh officially assign the code to one person or group is based on my wish that a version of LT is released. A playable game is my primary interest (beyond Josh's well-being). If something else was my primary interest, such as encouraging picking through Josh's code for individual snippets of coolness, then I also might endorse just dumping the code for whoever wants it. But that's not my primary interest; what I'd like to see is an actual, playable game that implements as many of the components of Josh's original vision as possible, because that game would be awesome.
And so I endorse Josh assigning his code to one person or group because I think that's the most likely pathway to achieving the goal of completing a playable LT-lite. There's a reasonable counter-argument that having multiple groups trying to build a playable LT-like game increases the odds that one of them succeeds. But the rebuttal is that making the code available to everyone would potentially divide programmer talent among competing groups, and could lead to arguments -- some possibly legal, because humans -- about whose game is the "true" LT successor.
Also, suppose a single team tries and then themselves also conclude they're unable to succeed. Nothing would stop them from saying, "Well, we tried and failed" and then releasing the code to everyone. But the inverse of that doesn't work; once the code's been handed over to the world, it is no longer possible to focus development resources within a single team.
So, again, I'd look with extreme disfavor (for whatever that matters to anyone) at any hint of a suggestion that there would be anything morally or legally wrong with Josh turning over his code to one person. That said, if he's absolutely convinced that no working game, not even a subset of LT, can possibly be made by anyone from the existing LT code, then I'd support a simple world-release. Otherwise, I'd like to see something like LT get made, and I think assigning the code to one person/team is the best hope of accomplishing that goal, bearing in mind that they can dump the code to the world if they also independently conclude (rightly or wrongly) that no game can be made from it.