I’m In Need of some play testers to figure out some kinks in my game RogueBoy please contact me if you’re interested and I’ll send the HEX through.
I am always in for some playtest!
Moved this to Help Wanted. Please try to keep the Games section for games only and the Homemade section for hardware builds only, thanks!
I can help out with anything programming related.
(E.g. squashing stubborn bugs and saving RAM or progmem.)
(And I was previously helping out with RogueBoy after all, so I know roughly what the code’s like.)
But if you just want someone to play the game to look for bugs and/or decide “is this fun?”,
then I’m probably not of much use.
That would be great tbh there are a few bugs that just wont go away to the point where i was thinking of rewriting a good fraction of the code
What sort of bugs?
Ordinarily I’d say not, but looking at the code I’m thinking you might be able to do better now.
Especially if you’ve been studying programming stuff while you’ve been away.
Once or twice I was tempted to fork RogueBoy and spruce it up because I think it will be a pretty good game when it’s finished, but I decided not to because my fork would have been bound by the GPL and I don’t like the GPL because (somewhat ironically) I find its terms too restrictive.
I was kinda thinking what licence I should use
Edit: updating it of course
The most common ones for Arduboy games are MIT, BSD 3-clause and Apache 2.0.
MIT is basically “do what you want, but keep this copyright notice”.
BSD 3-clause is “do what you want, but keep this copyright notice and don’t use my name to endorse your derivative program”.
Apache 2.0 is “do what you want, but keep this copyright notice and make sure to leave a note/comment saying that you’ve edited the code”.
I tend to use Apache 2.0 because I like it when people take credit and/or responsibility for their changes.
If they’ve made a good change, they deserve recognition for it.
And if they’ve introduced a bug, I don’t want people thinking it’s my fault.
The main reason I don't like the GPL is as thus...
If a program is released under the GPL and someone wants to use any part of that program in their own code (even one tiny function) then they would be forced to release their program under the GPL because including that code would technically make it a ‘derivative’, despite the fact it’s only using one tiny function.
This is why a lot of people (myself included) call the GPL a ‘viral’ licence.
If you try to include just one tiny part of any GPL code into your own program, it ‘infects’ your entire program.
Some would argue that’s a good thing, but I think that’s a bit of a stupid restriction for a licence that’s supposedly all about ‘freedom’.
MIT, BSD 3-clause and Apache 2.0 don’t have that problem.
You can take a function from code licenced under them and as long as you include the proper copyright notice and do the other stuff you’re supposed to do, you can include that bit of code in your own code and licence the rest of your code however you want.
Sorry, bit of a ramble.
Maybe someone will read this and learn something.
I see you chose BSD 3-clause. That’s a respectable choice.
One of the things I like about it is that you can selectively void the 3rd clause by giving someone written permission, so you have control over which derivatives you endorse…
I tend to oscillate between MIT and the BSD 3-clause licences.
I suspect they would be fixing bugs in my code rather than introducing new ones
I like the Apache licence for something like a library or toolkit but I am not sure it would be my first choice on a game.
Perhaps not, but how many times has someone actually modified one of your games without planning to have their change merged back into the original?
Besides which, it’s not a demand to document every change it detail.
The exact wording is:
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files
So a comment near the top saying “Hi, I modified this, signed @filmote” is sufficient.