Commercial Angband fork using lib/gamedata

[PoleaxeGames]

I'm a long-time game developer who has always been a fan of classic roguelikes. I wanted to develop a commercial rewrite of Angband using the design, rules, and lib/gamedata files from. I wouldn't use the existing source code except as a reference.

The goal is to present a modernized version of the game with higher fidelity graphics and a redesigned interface, using the Unity game engine.

I'm not certain if this is permitted, as the lib/gamedata files themselves do not contain a copyright notice.

If my described usage isn't permissible under the current license, or if the devs don't wish for the data files to be used in this manner (which I respect), I'd like to ask permission to do this. As long as the devs are open to the idea I'm happy to discuss in more detail privately through email.

[Pete Mack]

No way. Many monsters are borrowed from D&D or Tolkien. Those are both copyright--minor free software is in the grey area for fair use. The monster descriptions are copyright the authors (and sometimes Tolkien.)

Same holds for artifacts.

[PoleaxeGames]

Thanks for the quick response, I expected that might be the case. I might do non-commercial instead as I think it would be a fun exercise.

[PoleaxeGames]

No way. Many monsters are borrowed from D&D or Tolkien. Those are both copyright--minor free software is in the grey area for fair use. The monster descriptions are copyright the authors (and sometimes Tolkien.)

Same holds for artifacts.

Would it work if I were to rename the monsters, spells, etc. while keeping the design otherwise the same?

[takkaria]

Would it work if I were to rename the monsters, spells, etc. while keeping the design otherwise the same?

No. If you take a copyrighted work and modify it, you are creating a derivative work - you can't just call it your own. The copyright of Angband is fairly clearly detailed here:

https://github.com/angband/angband/blob/master/docs/copying.rst

As a whole the game is distributed under the Angband licence (which has no explicit provision for modifications at all but has a clear not for profit clause) or the GPLv2 (which allows distribution for profit but the code must remain open source). So if you reuse game files then you're creating a derivative work that you're selling, you'll have to use the GPLv2 and as a result distribute the source code too.

[tangar]

Would it work if I were to rename the monsters, spells, etc. while keeping the design otherwise the same?

Yes (sorry, takkaria) Wipe all Tolkien's references from lore and just go with GPLv2 license (which as takkaria said works for Angband). The only thing which you need - publish all your game source files. For Unity it's ezpz to do, there are plenty of open-source Unity-based games. Put source at github (together with lib files) and sell your game in Steam or at any other platforms

[PoleaxeGames]

Yes (sorry, takkaria) Wipe all Tolkien's references from lore and just go with GPLv2 license (which as takkaria said works for Angband). The only thing which you need - publish all your game source files. For Unity it's ezpz to do, there are plenty of open-source Unity-based games. Put source at github (together with lib files) and sell your game in Steam or at any other platforms

The plan is
1. Free
2. The code I write is open source
3. The code and assets I don't have a license to redistribute (including Unity) any downloaders of my source would have to get on their own.
4. I'll rename anything that a commercial entity has a copyright to.

I checked online and there seems to be disagreement as to whether #3 is allowed or not. Ultimately it depends on what the Angrand devs want to enforce or not, so I'd like to get official blessing to move ahead with this.

[tangar]

I suppose it won't be be a problem if people will be able to build full functional game from your source which you provide. If to do so they will need to install Unity IDE - it's not a problem - as it could be considered as 'compiler', which is not included to Angband, of course.

I mean - to compile Angband you need to have C compiler and it's not shipped with Angband; you have to download it from side website (eg GCC). With Unity it's the same. So far if you published your legit source code with all your assets (eg changed *band lib) which 100% will work with Unity IDE (so people will be able to build application with it from scratch) - you are ok to go with GPLv2.

Considering official blessing - there are no really 'official' stuff there, it's kinda community driven game. There is a maintainer (Nick) of course, but his blessing won't influence legal stuff. All legal stuff comes out from the license file - so far as you follow it - you are safe

[tangar]

Also...

When Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit will be entering the public domain:

Europe: 2043 (Life + 70)
Canada: 2023 (Life + 50)
U.S: 2043 or 2050

Wait 1 year and go with Tolkien lore ;D Just publish the game from Canada

[Pete Mack]

Tangar: that is only half of it. D&D is still pretty heavily used (floating eyes, druj, Vecna, etc.)

[Estie]

Mickey Mouse to become public domain in 2024 - hell must have frozen over.

[Julian]

The plan is
1. Free
2. The code I write is open source
3. The code and assets I don't have a license to redistribute (including Unity) any downloaders of my source would have to get on their own.
4. I'll rename anything that a commercial entity has a copyright to.

I checked online and there seems to be disagreement as to whether #3 is allowed or not. Ultimately it depends on what the Angrand devs want to enforce or not, so I'd like to get official blessing to move ahead with this.

The Free Software Foundation’s opinion is that #3 is not allowed. The FSF is also very much an interested party on the subject, as that’s one of the things they explicitly don’t want to happen. I’m not a copyright lawyer, nor do I feel like reading licenses ATM, so I’m not going to opine on that.

Any sort of commercialized version of Angband with the current data files is a nightmare. (The non-commercial version may well rely entirely on various copyright holders not caring. Or it may be fair use. Still not a copyright lawyer.) The developers of Moria and Angband lifted from everywhere willy-nilly. Tolkien, D&D, and MERP are the big three, but I would not bet on anything you think is original actually being so, except Quylthulgs.

You can reimplement the mechanics safely, but anything beyond that is questionable.

Also, honestly, without some major reworking, I doubt a commercial version of Angband would fly.

[tangar]

I don't think there will be any trouble from DnD or some misc entities. After all it will be yet another indie project which won't bring real maney, so no one will be interested to grab hold of it.

Also it's kinda close to nearly non-profit game as there are plenty of other ways to get much more $$ - just develop new mobile p2w grind stuff, not very niche roguelike game which (sadly) is too complex for modern gamer.

So indie dev who will make open-source game even if it will be sold on Steam for a fistful of dollars won't get any CC trouble, I'm sure in it.

Tangar: that is only half of it. D&D is still pretty heavily used (floating eyes, druj, Vecna, etc.)

Floating eye.. It's not copyrighted stuff. "Hobbit" word copyrighted only because it's the name of the book and Tolkien invented this word by himself. While floating eye it's pretty ancient mythology stuff, so it won't hurt. As long as you don't mention phrase "Dungeon & Dragons" in your game name and stay sane, you are more than safe to use any regular monsters species from it. There are no examples of court trials where dev was convicted for using DnD stuff like 'beholder'.. Funny thing, there is a game called like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beholder_(video_game) though it's different genre.. And word beholder used in a lot of places and games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beholder ... no one will care if you will make such monster. Though it's easy to rename it to 'floating eye' (which is cc0).

Also... 1st edition of DnD published in 1974.. soon it will be legal in Canada too