On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:28, Dan Sherman impact...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not too knowledgable on the LGPL, but the Mozilla license would be
something to look into.
Apache license (same as Android code license) may be the best choice.
And this would also allow for easy inclusion of some of
Definitely a good idea Fred, something else that I put into the TODO
list, thanks.
1.6 wasn't out when I was working the audio part of the engine, so it
never crossed my mind.
Also, I've been working on a game from the engine myself, and I've
made a nifty path following modifier, that will get
Hi Richard,
What is the terms conditions for using it? I mean copyright etc...
I'm developing some games ( my area of interest is AI type games ),
but I might be able to take some fragments of code for animations,
placement of objects etc. But for commercial side, I don't want to get
into
I tried it out and noticed that animation and movement jerks once a
second. Anyone else get that?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Android Developers group.
To post to this group, send email to
Probably some GC going on, I also noticed it but it seemed less
frequent than once per second.
On Sep 21, 7:45 am, Phred phr...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried it out and noticed that animation and movement jerks once a
second. Anyone else get that?
I noticed on the google code page http://code.google.com/p/rokon/ that
the license is GPL 3, which means anyone who uses it must open source
their app.
Richard, have you given some thought to changing the license to
something more permissive? Either way, impressive work. Good job.
On Sep 21,
The library looks great (after a few hours of playing with it), definitely
has some improvements that could be made, but very well laid out and easy to
work with.
However, the GPLv3 does make game development a bit of an issue, if the
games need to be released as GPLv3 as well...
- Dan
On Mon,
Dan, that's what I was thinking as well (regarding the GPLv3).
On Sep 21, 9:42 am, Dan Sherman impact...@gmail.com wrote:
The library looks great (after a few hours of playing with it), definitely
has some improvements that could be made, but very well laid out and easy to
work with.
Yes, the description in Google Code for the project says powerful
enough to create a highly polished commercial game. But you can't
exactly create a commercial game with code licensed under the GPL,
right?
On Sep 21, 11:46 am, nEx.Software email.nex.softw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dan, that's what I
You can technically. Nothing prevents your from selling the game you make,
you do have to release all of the source however, which makes doing anything
that you might want hidden (network protocols, etc) a bit tougher. :)
- Dan
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM, polyclefsoftware dja...@gmail.com
I think this library looks great and I see how I can use it in apps that
need great graphics features, not just games.
Regarding licensing, it would be great to figure out a way encourage lots of
solid libraries to be built and made available to the Android community.
For that to happen, I think
Thanks Dan, thanks everyone ...
That is what I thought. If the license allows that I've to publish any
modification/addition to this, then perhaps that is okay ( also
depends on how truly it can be used just as a framework). Since it is
hard labor ( on both side, framework developer, as well as
Thanks for the suggestions guys, really appreciate it. I've had dozens
of suggestions and thankyou's emailed in today alone.
In regards to licensing, I was going to keep it as GPL for a little
while longer.
I figured, with the engine at the state its in now, its unlikely you
will be able to
I'm not gunna try to talk you out of it, it's your code, and you should pick
the license that suits your ambitions for the project.
However, I can see it putting off a lot of users that might be interested in
working with it, who can't justify sinking weeks of time into a planned
commercial game,
Alright, I'll take it on board and think about changing it. I really
don't mind if people do whatever they want to with the code, just
thought it might encourage a little more of a push on the
contributions. But considering it, you might be right that its putting
people off.
Maybe change things
Alright, thanks for the suggestions you sent me Lance, it did make a
noticeable difference.
I also changed a lot of things that were causing garbage, and added in
a new particle engine.
For anyone who's nosey, you can take a look here at the new features
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYL-L7HnEE
how about using the new sound track engine in Android 1.6? JetBoy?
On Sep 20, 8:28 am, rich...@stickycoding.com
rich...@stickycoding.com wrote:
Alright, thanks for the suggestions you sent me Lance, it did make a
noticeable difference.
I also changed a lot of things that were causing garbage,
Wow, thanks. I look forward to checking this out.
On Sep 18, 2:08 pm, rich...@stickycoding.com
rich...@stickycoding.com wrote:
I've been working on a game framework for a little while, and while
its far from perfect, I've put the current version online.
To be honest, I haven't used much
Wow - thank you!
On 18 Sep, 14:08, rich...@stickycoding.com
rich...@stickycoding.com wrote:
I've been working on a game framework for a little while, and while
its far from perfect, I've put the current version online.
To be honest, I haven't used much OpenGL in the past. Before last week
I
I was thinking of doing something similar, but now I won't have to.
I'll look at the code.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Android Developers group.
To post to this group, send email to
Wow, thank you. This saves me a lot of work. I've been writing a game
with a friend and it is at the point where it has to be changed from
using Canvas to OpenGL.
Just started looking at your framework now - those example classes to
see how it is used are very helpful.
It will be interesting to
21 matches
Mail list logo
