12 ms·

Is Unreal Engine really open source? Doesn't look like it to me. https://www.unrealengine.com/eula https://www.unrealengine.com/eula

richardboegli 11y ago
Yes it is open source, but not libre / free. i.e: not GPL / BSD / MIT style etc... If you want to view and modify the code you can. So it is open in that sense.
- simoncion 11y ago
  I think the pithy phrase you were looking for was "It's open source, but not Free Software.". :)
  - richardboegli 11y ago
    Bingo, that is the concise version of what I was trying to say.
  - chei0aiV 11y ago
    No, it is more like "The source code is available if you register but it is not Open Source and not Free Software".
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Is the source code package you receive complete? If it is, then you must remember that sending a snail-mail request to get a snail-mailed set of disks in return, and being required to send the money required to cover the cost of making a copy of the disks along with your request is a 100% permitted way to fulfil the source code distribution requirement of the GPLv2.
      - chei0aiV 11y ago
        I haven't received the source code package and don't intend to do that. The license on the Unreal Engine source code is not GPLv2, it is a EULA that does not meet the Open Source Definition. https://www.unrealengine.com/eula https://www.unrealengine.com/eula https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        simoncion 11y ago
        > The license on the Unreal Engine source code is not GPLv2... I'm aware of that. I was making you aware that one of the canonical Free Software and Open Source licenses permits the source code provider to require requesters to use a rather inconvenient request method and cover the provider's actual duplication costs. This means that putting source code behind a free-of-charge authorization wall would still be 100% in compliance with the GPLv2's source code distribution requirement. > ...it is a EULA that does not meet the Open Source Definition. That doesn't make Unreal Engine closed source. Unreal Engine is open source. It just does not fit under the umbrella of ESR's Open Source philosophy. Much ink was spilled decades ago about how shitty it was of ESR to name his philosophy in such a confusing way. I expect that we'll never be rid of the confusion. It even got you confused! Notice how -in my reply to richardboegli- [0] I write "Free Software" with leading capitals (indicating that I mean libre software, rather than gratis software), but I do not write "open source" with leading capitals (indicating that I mean that the source code is available, but that it does not necessarily adhere to ESR's Open Source philosophy). Make sense? If my argument was not convincing, please do me the favor of answering the following question: "What is the English phrase that describes the opposite of 'closed source software', (that is, software whose source code is available for perusal, rather than software whose code is not)?". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10643807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10643807
        chei0aiV 11y ago
        Thanks for the explanations, that explains your GPLv2 post well. As far as I know there is no phrase that describes software whose source code has been intentionally publicly released under a license that doesn't meet the OSD/etc. I definitely wouldn't take the lower-case "open source" as meaning that. Perhaps "proprietary public source code"?
- chei0aiV 11y ago
  That doesn't sound like the open source that I know. https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Yep. ESR has opinions, and reasonable people disagree with them sometimes.

richardboegli 11y ago

Yes it is open source, but not libre / free. i.e: not GPL / BSD / MIT style etc... If you want to view and modify the code you can. So it is open in that sense.

simoncion 11y ago
I think the pithy phrase you were looking for was "It's open source, but not Free Software.". :)
- richardboegli 11y ago
  Bingo, that is the concise version of what I was trying to say.
- chei0aiV 11y ago
  No, it is more like "The source code is available if you register but it is not Open Source and not Free Software".
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Is the source code package you receive complete? If it is, then you must remember that sending a snail-mail request to get a snail-mailed set of disks in return, and being required to send the money required to cover the cost of making a copy of the disks along with your request is a 100% permitted way to fulfil the source code distribution requirement of the GPLv2.
    - chei0aiV 11y ago
      I haven't received the source code package and don't intend to do that. The license on the Unreal Engine source code is not GPLv2, it is a EULA that does not meet the Open Source Definition. https://www.unrealengine.com/eula https://www.unrealengine.com/eula https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > The license on the Unreal Engine source code is not GPLv2... I'm aware of that. I was making you aware that one of the canonical Free Software and Open Source licenses permits the source code provider to require requesters to use a rather inconvenient request method and cover the provider's actual duplication costs. This means that putting source code behind a free-of-charge authorization wall would still be 100% in compliance with the GPLv2's source code distribution requirement. > ...it is a EULA that does not meet the Open Source Definition. That doesn't make Unreal Engine closed source. Unreal Engine is open source. It just does not fit under the umbrella of ESR's Open Source philosophy. Much ink was spilled decades ago about how shitty it was of ESR to name his philosophy in such a confusing way. I expect that we'll never be rid of the confusion. It even got you confused! Notice how -in my reply to richardboegli- [0] I write "Free Software" with leading capitals (indicating that I mean libre software, rather than gratis software), but I do not write "open source" with leading capitals (indicating that I mean that the source code is available, but that it does not necessarily adhere to ESR's Open Source philosophy). Make sense? If my argument was not convincing, please do me the favor of answering the following question: "What is the English phrase that describes the opposite of 'closed source software', (that is, software whose source code is available for perusal, rather than software whose code is not)?". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10643807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10643807
        chei0aiV 11y ago
        Thanks for the explanations, that explains your GPLv2 post well. As far as I know there is no phrase that describes software whose source code has been intentionally publicly released under a license that doesn't meet the OSD/etc. I definitely wouldn't take the lower-case "open source" as meaning that. Perhaps "proprietary public source code"?
chei0aiV 11y ago
That doesn't sound like the open source that I know. https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
- simoncion 11y ago
  Yep. ESR has opinions, and reasonable people disagree with them sometimes.