"What can you do or not do" does not fit nature of license.

[CredibleOpossum]

In the readme there is a section that lists restrictions, being:

You can't:

- Create a side/new/etc engine (or mod that doesn't use Codename Engine) using Codename Engine's code
- Steal code from Codename Engine for another different project that is not Codename Engine related (Codename Engine mods excluded) without properly crediting
- Release the entire Codename Engine on platforms (Mods that use Codename Engine as source are fine, if it's specified even better)

However this doesn't exactly fit the nature of the Apache2.0 license this repository has, the only limitation which could be enforced in this nature is trademark, which applies to branding but does not apply to code. Apache2.0 already requires attestation, but likely not in the way the readme appears to want.

While obviously a small issue it likely goes against the intentions of the original developer (I believe this is a fork? Feel free to correct me).

It might be more ideal to change this to a "Feel free to/Please do not" section.

[r6915ee]

I guess it might be some form of dual licensing? While I pretty much only have private repositories, I usually only license them via the MIT license in case I do release them due to how it works and its simplicity and permissiveness, as I just follow that standard. I've never really used dual licensing so I can't really comment on this myself.

[NeeEoo]

This is mainly due to the community made engines that just steal our code without crediting us.
If they credit us it's fine.
We've seen tons of forks of engines steal code from us without crediting us.
The message is just to discourage stealing without crediting

[CredibleOpossum]

This is mainly due to tons of forks of the fnf engine that just steal out code without crediting us. If they credit us its fine. We've seen tons of forks of engines steal code from us without crediting us

Reasonable, but kind of credit?
Apache would only require a NOTICE.txt, I believe.
It's just the readme also says

Create a sub engine with Codename Engine as TEMPLATE with CREDITS (for example leaving the credits menu submenu with the GitHub contributors and putting the [main devs](https://github.com/CodenameCrew) in a README specifying that it's a sub engine from Codename Engine)

which implies a stricter standard.

It might be a good idea to write a simple file you would request people to redistribute with the code that has the name of author, contributors, and other important mentions, but this wouldn't be meaningfully enforceable.

There's nothing explicitly incorrect about the readme, it just seems strange to have a "you can't steal code" while having a license that explicitly allows for utilizing and redistributing the code with minimal attribution.

[NexIsDumb]

It might be a good idea to write a simple file you would request people to redistribute with the code that has the name of author, contributors, and other important mentions, but this wouldn't be meaningfully enforceable.

welllll, i was the one to create that and i know that what you're saying is not wrong, the problem though is that we all know well the fnf community and many people inside not really reading what you want them to read

i just placed that notice in the readme to make sure people would read it immediately

[r6915ee]

welllll, i was the one to create that and i know that what you're saying is not wrong, the problem though is that we all know well the fnf community and many people inside not really reading what you want them to read

i just placed that notice in the readme to make sure people would read it immediately

Shouldn't a hyperlink to the notice file exist to theoretically solve both situations?

[NexIsDumb]

Shouldn't a hyperlink to the notice file exist to theoretically solve both situations?

yeah true, i just thought it'd make less impact