Steam Release
-
Would anybody else be interested in seeing the powder toy get released on Steam?
-
This was once considered by @Lockheedmartin, not sure if he's still considering it. Due to how busy he is now! https://powdertoy.co.uk/Discussions/Thread/View.html?Thread=19414
-
I haven't entirely ruled out placing on Steam. While Greenlight was out of reach for various reasons, now they've replaced the method with a more direct system. I'm looking into it.
Of course this is one of many side projects. If I make a considerable effort, I'll definitely let people know!
-
I've looked over the documentation and requirments. Unfortunately, we cannot distribute via the new distribution system. They require content to be pushed through "Steamworks SDK" and use of cetain APIs. Those two components require signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). That means they are proprietary and do not allow distribution of the code. The Powder Toy is an open source application under GPLv3, therefor the two are, legally, incompatible.
Unless we get permission from all the authors (which won't happen) for a more copy"right" license or there's a seperate executable to run the APIs with a specially compiled client, we cannot list the game on Steam.
Edited once by Lockheedmartin. Last: 21st Nov 2018 -
It seems like there might be another avenue to steam. I did a little research and from this link , it says:But I saw a GPL-licensed application on Steam!
This can happen if the author of the code that is GPL-licensed has given the permission to do so. The author can of course always (a) decide to grant Valve a different licensethan the author grants everyone else or (b) decide that what the Steamworks SDK does is just a communication with a service that does not invoke the copyleft requirement of the GPL.
If I understand this correctly the original author who decided on distrbuiting the intial license must of been Stanislaw K. Skowronek, and he alone can decide to grant valve a different license or decide steamworks isn't applicable to the 'copyleft' argument. Who Stanislaw K. Skowronek is and if he's even available to contact is a different question, but he may be able to help.
I also found a disscussion pertaining to this problem on a steam thread for an indie game it went on to say;
"If you want to use Steamworks SDK you'll have to bypass that. One of ways you can do that it's create some independent executable/service that will be licensed under less restrictive license, will be linked with libsteam_api.so and run it in background together with game. Then you can pass data between game and this service over socket or network."
Someone went on to say that you might be able to use WebAPI instead.
I don't if any of this is applicable, but if it's possible I would love to see TPT released on Steam in some way. It's one of my all time favorite games, and I think it would do really well.
Edit: Much formattingEdited 5 times by makedamnnsure. Last: 21st Nov 2018 -
@makedamnnsure (View Post)
The way GPL works, all authors would have to agree to change it. We have a lot of contributors, some that haven't done anything in a long time: https://github.com/ThePowderToy/The-Powder-Toy/graphs/contributors
Of the top 10, I could easily contact all except NoH and zc00gii (because I don't know who they are), after that it gets really tricky, because some I *really* don't know who they are, and they might have just submitted a few random pull requests.
GPL forbids you from changing the license, that's one of the reasons people use it. It enforces open-sourced free software.
As for the other idea, yeah that seems more possible. I don't know all the details of how steam works, but if we could communicate with the steam portion via a socket api, and the steam portion only is closed source, that should work. I don't think we're allowed to link directly to the steam portion, but as long as it is a separate executable, nothing forbids your GPL-licensed process from using a closed-source api. -
It isn't just the original licensor, but those who have contributed too. Their code is under the license and they are seen as additional authors because they added code in the understanding that the code is to be packaged and distributed under GPLv3. Which is why I've stated it's unlikely we'll get everyone involved. Skylark is on the IRC channel (#powder)
Edited once by Lockheedmartin. Last: 21st Nov 2018 -
Everyone would have to vote, excluding mere users (us). If you don't understand what jacob1 and Lockheedmartin are saying, plus I don't see it happening. Due to some moderators/developers are now rarely active, or active at all.
Edited once by NUCLEAR_FOX. Last: 22nd Nov 2018 -
jacob1:
@makedamnnsure (View Post)
The way GPL works, all authors would have to agree to change it. We have a lot of contributors, some that haven't done anything in a long time: https://github.com/ThePowderToy/The-Powder-Toy/graphs/contributors
Of the top 10, I could easily contact all except NoH and zc00gii (because I don't know who they are), after that it gets really tricky, because some I *really* don't know who they are, and they might have just submitted a few random pull requests.
GPL forbids you from changing the license, that's one of the reasons people use it. It enforces open-sourced free software.
As for the other idea, yeah that seems more possible. I don't know all the details of how steam works, but if we could communicate with the steam portion via a socket api, and the steam portion only is closed source, that should work. I don't think we're allowed to link directly to the steam portion, but as long as it is a separate executable, nothing forbids your GPL-licensed process from using a closed-source api.Hate to necro an old thread, but there's some discussion going on about TPT on the steam Reddit here https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/ctwvwn/gnu_general_public_license_and_steam_games/
Have you given any thought about possibly using the socket api work around?
