Black Dog source-code released!

For those of you looking for a working game using the Android native development kit and SDL, here’s your chance ;) As mentioned previously I’m going travelling this Summer so I’ve decided to open the C++ version of Black Dog in the meantime so people can take a look…

Disclaimer: this game is almost but not quite finished! I’m providing it as promised so that I don’t make those interested wait until August when I get back from my holidays ;)

Here is the github repository. Code is licensed under GPL version 3, art under CC-BY-2.0-3.0. I’ll be returning home sometime in August to resume development, but in the meantime I intend to make the most of Summer and not look at too many screens :)

The game runs on Linux (Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit) and Android (2.1 and above) at the moment, and should work on Windows too… though in all honesty I haven’t tried compiling it for that system for some time. Compiling for Windows is a rather unpleasant experience that I don’t recommend unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately it almost always is. I’d like to support Mac but I’ve never actually had a Mac, so it’s a bit tricky to test builds.

Consult the readme for details on how to get the project working: mostly you’ll need to use the documentation provided by Google and SDL to set up Eclipse. I haven’t included all the required libraries in the repository as this would take up too much space on the server – the newest versions seem to be causing problems, so here is a link to the versions I use, which work for me :) These must be placed in the jni folder.

I’m providing this as is and shan’t be around to respond to questions until I get back and resume development. Bug reports are most welcome, though again it may be a while before they are addressed.

See you all in August :D


    Would be really nice if you didn’t release your code under the GPLv3. v3 is terrible and it should never have been drafted. Also, why not CC-BY 3.0? Only the legal code is different so that it applies to more jurisdictions. All you need to do is change a header file.

    And why do you use GitHub? It’s just hypocritical, as GitHub itself is not open source. Use Gitorious instead if you truly believe in open source software.

    • Wilbefast

       I got into using GitHub through university: as with many things I use it because I’m used to it. Thanks for the tip, I’ve check out Gitorious. Could you tell me what exactly don’t you like about GPL3 and what would you recommend instead? Also, what changes between CCBY2 and 3?

      • qubodup

        (That partially trolling (“hypocricical”) anon wasn’t me)

        All I know about CC-BYv3 is that Debian has a problem with CC-BY-SA 2.5 and earlier and that this probably affects CC-BYv2.5 or older as well.

        No idea what the problem with GPLv3… Here’s a quote:

        “Conversion isn’t going to happen,” Torvalds said in a posting to the Linux kernel mailing list. “I don’t think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don’t want to convert any of my code.”Torvalds specifically objected to one new provision in the GPL 3 draft that opposes digital rights management, which is technology that uses encryption to control the use of content and running of software. “I think it’s insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn’t do it,” he said.

        • Wilbefast

          I’m not sure I’m perfectly in line Linus Torvalds’ philosophy to be honest – generally speaking I mean. He’s a bit more controlling than he might be. Not quite as mad as certain other Linux big-wigs though ;P

          • qubodup

            I have been avoiding learning and forming an opinion about GPLv3 to be honest. Shame on me. :)

            Linus made me happy a little while ago: (58m25s)


        Haha, I should have checked out the sources.

        Anyway, the differences between CC 2.0 and 3.0 are essentially moot for the casual developer. They basically just cleaned up the language so it applies to more jurisdictions (read: outside the US). The result is the same. Remember, Creative Commons is a lawyers’ project, they don’t like telling us mere mortals what’s going on. :)

        As for GPLv3, it’s because in many ways it hurts open source. BSD distributions cannot ship with code under the GPLv3. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the Secure Boot controversy (see for info, though note this is somewhat dated, it’s worse now), but basically GRUB 2, the universal bootloader is licensed under the GPLv3, meaning they cannot implement Secure Boot because it would be in breach of its license. I know, right?

        The only real difference from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3, apart from a little cleanup of some vague language (it’s still far too long and too vague a license in terms of wording) is the addition of the “TIVOisation clause”, which causes all these problems. The problem with TIVO, a set-top box provider in the US is that they use Linux but don’t provide an open hardware specification. Many people didn’t agree with it, and the GPLv2 reigns king still in many ways.

        Though games are generally unaffected by the switch to GPLv3 (apart from the possible breach of some anti-cheat systems in online games). You won’t see much of a practical difference either, as there are no game-oriented BSD-licenses Operating Systems I know of.

        However, I think it would still be bad to promote its use by putting your code under this license as this propagates its use either directly (people fork your code) or indirectly (all they see is GPLv3, so they use that). This is not just my opinion, it’s the majority opinion.

    • Wilbefast

      Actually 3.0 is the licence I actually included, not 2.0 I’ll fix the post.