Booster's Lab - It's Pretty Good Now

Of course he doesn't have to tell us what he's doing. That wasn't the point of my post. Many of us have been eagerly awaiting further development on KSS, and the prospect that Noxid might get to start working on it again once BL is at v. 1.0.0.0 is something to which we can look forward. However, life happens and I'm sure that there are plenty of other things that he would like to dedicate his time to in addition to modding/developing a fan-game.

In the spirit of being slightly on-topic, I recently bought a new computer that can run the required version of java to be able to use BL. The good news is that I can open the .jar file now. When I have some free time to go back through this thread to figure out what I'm doing in the application, maybe I'll even fiddle around with some maps or something.

 

Two (minor) things: One, horizontal scrolling doesn't seem to work (as in, scrolling without using the scroll bar, but that's probably not much of an issue since not many mice have functionality for scrolling sideways), and two, is there any way to make entities show up while viewing the "tile" tab in a map, like CE does? my god I'm a dumbfuck

 

Is there anybody here that speaks legalese and wants to help me writeup a license agreement or something? I want BL to be free for non-commercial use while reserving the right to sell a license for commercial use of the software. Everybody wins!

 

Certainly. I took 1 semester of law and economics before. Why not?

EDIT:
Booster's Lab General License 1.0: http://pastebin.com/wbzuwMkE

Tell me what you think. It may need some work. Or a lot of work.
The particular Pastebin paste you see is unlisted. That means nobody can figure out that it exists unless you have the link, or you are the administrator of Pastebin.
There we have it.

 

You want this license noxid: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

 

I thought he wanted to sell BL if businesses wanted it.
But creative commons will never let a business use it.

 

It will need to be modified, but that license is a good starting point I think.

Actually you should take notice of the "Waiver" section of the license. It states that the license can be overridden with the consent of the copyright holder, which would be Noxid.

 

Which license? Creative commons or the http://pastebin.com/wbzuwMkE ?

 

I like the end of carrotlord's.
You'll probably need to make it more bulletproof tho. CC may be a good jumping-off point.

 

About how usable is this for a full project? From what I've seen, it seems pretty stable, but I haven't used it too extensively.

 

It is currently the most advanced editor on the Cave Story forums.

It offers some features that no other editor offers, such as being able to interpret Javascript. At the very least, I hope that feature is still in there.

You will be able to do many other things later, like put in simple assembly hacks just like the Physics Editor, and have comments automatically handled in your TSC code (it will take Noxid like 10 seconds to insert the code for this).
In other words, it's already better than CE and SW.

 

It has all essential features at the moment short of assembly hacking, and most of what remains to do is improvements to the user experience and bugfixing, as well as some novelty features. 9/10 testers agree that it will probably not format your hard drive.

(I'm just kidding)

(i dont really have 10 people testing this)

 

Now, it won't format your hard drive UNLESS you forget to uncheck read only on your Cave Story folder.
Also, if you're using a version of Java that isn't Java 6 or 7, it will also reformat your hard drive.

Clicking on too many buttons too fast or trying to edit the JAR with a hex editor will also cause Booster's Lab to reformat your Dropbox and your Gmail inbox.

EDIT: Hey Noxid give feedback on Creative Commons and that license thingy I wrote.

 

Sweet. Guess I'll have to transfer over from SW, then. Thank you for such a quick and informative response!

 

Be careful. Booster's Lab is not designed to handle SW executables.

Or maybe it does, but trying to open a SW is also grounds for reformatting your Dropbox and your all your emails.

Anyway, back to licenses...

EDIT:

General Public License v3: http://www.gnu.org/l...standalone.html [This one is not for you, but has some good wording, especially with the warranty or lack thereof]
Creative Commons License: Don't use this. It doesn't let businesses give you cash for your program.
Attributions NoDerivs License: http://creativecommo...d/3.0/legalcode [The best so far.]
Legalese and Swag: http://pastebin.com/wbzuwMkE

EDIT2:
Another example license - https://github.com/Carrotlord/Mint-1.9-ProgrammingLanguage/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

 

@SW it can convert it over fine but like Cave Editor it doesn't supply a means to un-convert it so you shouldn't attempt to edit with SW's after as SW will ruin a CE-format exe

BL should be fully cross-compatible with CE but I haven't really tested it superbly

@license Right, right
I'm avoiding thinking about it because I don't know what it needs to say really but I do have to make a decision soon
Dinny said using CC as a base and then adding specific clauses that are needed to an addendum of sorts, like the misc. section. I like your license carrotlord but I think it may be a bit *too* specific in its language at parts, such as the second half of section 4.
Also, I thought CC only applied to creative works like books or art or film or vidja. So taking one of those licenses, or maybe a software-specific license and adapting it to the specific circumstances seems like a good idea.

 

I think that for you Noxid, the Attributions NoDerivs version of the CC (NOT the regular Creative Commons) is the way to go.

You can also change my license to whatever the ___ you want.

Why the Attributions NoDerivs?
-- Nobody can mess with your source code unless you explicitly give them permission.
-- Nobody can sell your program for money without talking to you.
-- You can sell the software to businesses for a price.
-- People can use it for free as long as they don't start a company that uses the editor.

 

Yeah, what Carrotlord said in the above.

I'll stand by my suggestion of using the most restrictive form of CC (and to clafiry, CC will apply to software), but like Carrotlord cautioned... I suspect that the most restrictive form of CC (the one we've been looking at) prevents you from selling BL in case you wanted to do that.

And yeah, you already know this, but you don't want the base CC license, you want BY-ND, just like Carrotlord said (Attribution, No Derivative Works). Also, did you want it NC (non-commercial) as well or no?

 

And yeah, you already know this, but you don't want the base CC license, you want BY-ND, just like Carrotlord said (Attribution, No Derivative Works). Also, did you want it NC (non-commercial) as well or no?

Free for non-commercial use, while reserving the right to sell a license for commercial use of the software.

 

Free for non-commercial use, while reserving the right to sell a license for commercial use of the software.

That's what non-commercial will do for you, since as the copyright holder you're allowed to override this CC contract at any time that you want to (it's in the waiver section). So it looks like you want the CC license I linked you to on the last page (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).