[hungie]

If I haven't paid for a license or even if I have, I don't have permissions to reproduce or use the code. So let's say I'm making a game like Mario paint, and in my game I'm doing some image manipulation.

If I've looked at your proprietary code, you could argue I stole your ip to make my game. That the functions I wrote in my game are fundamentally similar to those you wrote, and therefore I need to stop selling.

Most studios have pretty strong "don't look at code you can't own" processes for this reason.

[flinkerflitzer]

I get your point in principle, but even if I were inclined to get litigious in a situation like that (which I'm not), I don't see how such an argument would have any legs for anything other than the most niche algorithms in the codebase that concern features or systems are more or less unique to Stipple Effect.

I will reflect on this though. This is my first time commercially distributing software, and my priorities for the license were for it to protect my IP without being overly restrictive. However, I've had a few people in separate spaces raise concerns with it, and I want my software to be as accessible as possible without compromising my ability to profit from it or expose myself to liability or "theft".

I'm the sole developer of Stipple Effect, so I can update the license with a future release if I feel compelled to do so.