Welcome to the Construct 2 public preview

In response to your post, deadeye..

Any software which is to be placed in the XBLIG marketplace must first pass a peer review, whereby its content must be seen to be of a certain standard with regard to bugs and other issues as well as a point based rating of content for violence, sexual themes and such. Until it's rated as stable and suitable by enough users, it passes on to the marketplace.

As far as malicious code and the like, I guess it's down to whomever makes an exporter to determine what actually gets exported. As well as this, there are quite a lot of limitations from what I understand as to what can be achieved through XNA on the XBox, so I'd gather that the risks would be minimal. There would have to be special considerations also for XNA specific functions such as the trial restrictions, voice chat and on-screen keyboard.

Right, I knew about the peer-review for the games themselves, I just wasn't sure how picky Microsoft is about which software is allowed to export an XBLIG-compatible format.

I don't think you go in the right direction Ash :

Your team have not finish C1. But it is your time and your work, and C1 was free... so, you make what you want. But you loose some "serious image".

Now for C2, Html5 is great, but how many browser use it ? what about the difference the different browser with the html5 ? What about security with a local access of data user ?

Html5 must be an option. and just an option. Compiled game is the best way.

If you want more revenue, why don't make before a stable 1.0 ? Just a 1.0. Not a 0.9962 and say after "Hey guy !!!! i come with C3 !!! more features more...".

I understand your problem of student. I understand that html5 i a great idea and i see so good engine in html5 like Mr Doob Harmony that i think your right about this. But this is a wrong way too stop C1, a wrong way to just put a html5 export.

To interest developper, it would be nice to have a croos-platforme like Shiva or have many exporter. But having many exporter is a hell to support...

I think C1 or C2 must be commercial. Like Ct or Shiva, choose a good price, put a commercial guy in your team !

But like i said : this is your time, your work, and all of this is free in this moment. So you make what u want !

EDIT : there is the link about security problem with local data in html5.

http://www.nczonline.net/blog/securestore-proposal/

[quote:1zem8858]Also: the split GPL/BSD licensing you describe makes a lot of sense-- it does seem though like this would possibly prevent, for example, copying OpenGL rendering code out of the IDE and into a hypothetical exe exporter?

Each source file has a license pasted at the top - and the renderer code is intentionally licensed BSD as well, for this purpose.

Oh, that's great! Thanks for explaining.

[quote:1zem8858][quote:1zem8858]Another small thing. A note in one of the files mentions GPL 3-- will it be GPL 3 only, then, or will GPL 2 be also available?

I'm not actually clear on the difference between GPL 2 and 3 - if someone can describe exactly why GPL 3 would be a bad thing for Construct 2, I can re-license it to GPL 2.

So, I will do my best-- Basically GPL 2 was very straightforward, it simply says that you may not distribute something based on the GPLed code unless you make the source GPL-available also. The goal of GPL 3 as I understood it however was that the FSF was beginning to get worried about various "backdoor" ways of closing off the openness of GPL code, such as patent nonsense, or putting the software onto hardware such as a Tivo or XBox which restricts what kind of binaries may be run (such that you could get the source to a piece of software, but not be able to compile or run it), or circumventing the GPL's requirements based on "distribution" entirely using a web service (that last thing they eventually addressed with a totally separate license called the AGPL). GPL3 therefore includes extra clauses to ensure source remains unencumbered even under unusual circumstances. However the criticism is that they went too far and added restrictions to GPL3 that either limit the freedom of code recipients or make it impossible to use GPL code at all in certain environments. For example the biggest criticism of GPL3 seems to be the new rules on patents; GPL2 had a simple rule that you simply were not allowed to use patent encumbered technologies in GPL code, however GPL3 in addition to this has an affirmative licensing clause where by distributing GPL3 code you are under certain circumstances actually granting patent licenses. This makes GPL3 radioactive for some businesses because by participating in distribution of GPL3 code they could be granting patent licenses accidentally. Of course patents are not very relevant to Construct, however a similar problem which may be more relevant is the elaborate "authorization keys" provision in section 6, which is intended to prevent the use of DRM and requires you for example to release any signing keys used to install a GPL3 program onto a device. So for example if the Construct2 IDE code is GPL3 then it would not be possible to run it on a piece of hardware that uses code signing, like an iPad or an XBox 360, because the GPL3 would require you to divulge the developer signing keys but under the iPad/360 developer agreements you would be barred from releasing (or may not even have access to) said keys. (Although note there is some controversy about using GPL2 software on iOS as well.)

Because of these new restrictions some projects have declined to move forward to GPL3, most notably Linux is only available under GPL2. The Linux developers describe their reasons for rejecting GPL2 here (although note, that article was based on a draft version of GPL3 which may have been even more stringent); their general stance seems to be that the changes in GPL3 are not really necessary to ensure the freedom of software, and are more about using the wide install base of GPL software as a club to discourage certain unsavory software practices (submarine patents, software signing) which the FSF objects to as a political stance. I think I agree with what the Linux developers say here, but I find it kind of hard to say for sure if GPL3 is a good thing or not, which leads me to what I think the biggest problem with the GPL3-- I have had some trouble understanding exactly what it requires you to do! GPL2 is easy to understand and easy to follow. GPL3 contains many rules and some of them, it's ambiguous exactly when you are or are not in compliance. For this reason if no other I personally would be a little hesitant contributing to a GPL3-only project.

What I would suggest doing is what many projects do. Use this boilerplate from the GPL FAQ:

[quote:1zem8858]This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

If you use the "version 2, or at your option any later version" language, then this means that users can treat your software as being under version 2 or version 3 of the GPL depending on what works best for them (and there are advantages to having the GPL3 option, for example it is compatible with the apache2 license where GPL2 is not). This gives your users maximum flexibility while still ensuring that your code retains GPL protections.

Now of course if there's some specific thing in the GPL3 you like then it is not a big deal, use the license you are comfortable with. But you seem to be saying that you weren't familiar with GPL3 specifically and just wanted some GPL license, in which case I think the "2 or later" standard is probably the way to go.

Hope this helps...

It's the most impressive software I ever seen in my life, sincerly, Construct is just so Epic.

I'll second that, no software has ever got me so excited with it's potential for a long long time.

I don't think you go in the right direction Ash :

Your team have not finish C1. But it is your time and your work, and C1 was free... so, you make what you want. But you loose some "serious image".

Now for C2, Html5 is great, but how many browser use it ? what about the difference the different browser with the html5 ? What about security with a local access of data user ?

Html5 must be an option. and just an option. Compiled game is the best way.

If you want more revenue, why don't make before a stable 1.0 ? Just a 1.0. Not a 0.9962 and say after "Hey guy !!!! i come with C3 !!! more features more...".

I understand your problem of student. I understand that html5 i a great idea and i see so good engine in html5 like Mr Doob Harmony that i think your right about this. But this is a wrong way too stop C1, a wrong way to just put a html5 export.

To interest developper, it would be nice to have a croos-platforme like Shiva or have many exporter. But having many exporter is a hell to support...

I think C1 or C2 must be commercial. Like Ct or Shiva, choose a good price, put a commercial guy in your team !

But like i said : this is your time, your work, and all of this is free in this moment. So you make what u want !

EDIT : there is the link about security problem with local data in html5.

http://www.nczonline.net/blog/securestore-proposal/

Dude, Construct 1 is bult on a shaky foundation. As the Devs have said in the past, it would be easier to start from scratch then continue working with bad code.

I don't think they have lost any "image" in this move.

<gpl discussion>

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I guess GPL v3 isn't really applicable to C2 and GPL v2 will do just fine.

However, I checked the sources, and the boilerplate is already there! I unknowingly pasted it in to every source file without really reading it:

[quote:120z746m]// This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

// the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or

// (at your option) any later version.

So I guess it is exactly what you described already! Thanks for clearing up the GPL v3 issue though, now I'm pretty sure we've done the right thing with licensing.

(Note: despite what I said about the exporter being BSD, I checked the sources and they say GPL - woops! I'll relicense it to BSD today, it's all my code so it's straightforward)

kwarn: I understand your concerns but I've already described our rationale in the open letter to the community - I don't really have anything to add on top of that, I'm afraid.

I disagree with this point of view : Bad code you said ? but in how many time they knew that ? And now, in how many time they'll see they'll go in a wrong way ?

This is not for me, i have no project in C1. I hope C2 will load caps file of C1 for all users who spent time to their projects !

When you start without finish one thing, i think you loose "image" anyway.

But i hope this C2 go to the... 1.0.

But like i said, all is free... so if it is not finish, it is not very important. This is way, open projet with just some people didn't work.

Ash :

i am not affraid. I understand your point of vue Ash. I am not a user. No project. So, your v13.0 doesn't exist. It is not important for me. I hope you will have a 1.0 with C2 this time and say not after spending your time after 2 years : "i had choose the bad way... sorry , but there is C3".

For a developper, it is just ridiculous for a second time...

I hope you finish C2 anyway.

You can't build a skyscraper without tearing the old house and its foundations apart.

Ashley: OK, that sounds good. Thanks

You can't build a skyscraper without tearing the old house and its foundations apart.

But what if you attach thousands of balloons to the old house, detaching it from its old location and lifting it safely to South America to fulfill a childhood dream?!

[quote:1cwc865q]But what if you attach thousands of balloons to the old house, detaching it from its old location and lifting it safely to South America to fulfill a childhood dream?!

Oh wow you could make a game out of that, no wait, a movie!

Ash :

i am not affraid. I understand your point of vue Ash. I am not a user. No project. So, your v13.0 doesn't exist. It is not important for me. I hope you will have a 1.0 with C2 this time and say not after spending your time after 2 years : "i had choose the bad way... sorry , but there is C3".

For a developper, it is just ridiculous for a second time...

I hope you finish C2 anyway.

Ash was not calling you afraid.

I don't really have anything to add on top of that, I'm afraid.

The " I'm afraid " part at the end of the sentence is a polite expressions.

I'm afraid assumes that there will be sorrow after... whatever statement is about to be spoken/written.I'm afraid assumes there will be an emotional response from the other person/persons listening or reading. The phrase almost prepares the listener for what is about to be said or cautions the listener that you are indeed afraid of their response when it's said at the end of the sentence.

Now with that out of the way.

kwarn you do have a valid point their but, your looking at it from a user point of view.

I am going to try and break it down for you as a programmer.

They use construct 0.x to build their skill and knowledge.

construct have hundreds maybe even thousands of lines of code that they written when they started programming . They work up to this point building upon the old inefficient code.

this leads to problems and bugs. So they went through the codes again to patch up the problems and bugs but, more problems and bugs pop up and this continues for many new builds of construct 0.x to the current one to day.

At some point you realize that the old code is holding you back.

So, what do you do?

1: Do you continues for many more builds with the old code that is holding you back.

or

2: Do you start from scratch with the skill and knowledge gained from construct 0.x.

you may say 1 but I think they picked the right answer.

I have to agree with toralord. The correct choice was definitely made by the developers. The same choice has been made countless times before by many others as well, as it is the logical one.

Besides, how can anyone feel indignant that the developers move on from a project that they gave away? It's still there to use, for free. If anyone started working on a major project using a product that was somewhere in the alpha to beta release stages, then they should expect to have to start over at some point just because of that, really. Consider it a learning experience, and you'll come away with a better product.

Anyway, I think this move is the right one on many points. I can't say that I'm thrilled about the HTML5 at this point, or the apparent lack of proper scripting, but I'll be interested to see where this goes.

I do hope that variables come with much more robustness than the previous version. That was one thing that made me prefer Python over Events in the previous version. Some sort of data collection, like classes or structs, is needed. Ability to create new instances of them at run-time is a must. And functions need to have more elegant argument passing, as well as local variables. THESE THINGS ARE IMPERATIVE! AGREE!

I'm already impressed with what is here currently, though. I wish this project well.

I am excited about the potential of Construct 2, though I probably won't try to do anything serious with it until it gets Windows/OSX/Linux exporting and pixel shader support to go with it (because pixel shaders are amazing and absolutely vital to the development of the projects I'm working on). In other words, as long as the capability of having multiple exporters doesn't hinder the possibilities of individual exporters and everything doesn't always have to adhere to the lowest common denominator, I'm game.