7 ms·

Unfortunately not open source.

vvanders 10y ago
Feel free to downvote me but some people need to eat. Game development doesn't really match well with the consultancy model of most commercial Open Source companies. Also the RAD guys are awesome, they've been putting out solid tools for years.
- lazyjones 10y ago
  All valid points, but think of all the open source projects, even browsers, that could be improved with this compression method if it wasn't proprietary. Perhaps it's time to attempt to "free" such software via a cooperative effort, e.g. by talking to RAD about a one-time payment for an open source release and organizing that as a Kickstarter project.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    That's the rub though, you're talking about a one-time payment. That isn't a sustainable way to keep a company running. The amount of work that RAD puts into stuff like this, BINK, and their other tools if you wanted to do a OTP you'd be looking at something in the neighborhood of 50-60M. Everyone uses their stuff in games since it's that good. You'd have to replace licensing costs not only for each game but each platform those games ship on.
    - lambertsimnel 10y ago
      I wonder whether it would be viable GPLd with a proprietary licences available for a fee. I suppose that might still be costly and would be incompatible with the licences used by some FOSS projects.
    - brigade 10y ago
      I can't find the post now, but one of the RAD developers behind this codec (it's their 3rd ANS based codec I believe) has said that they would likely be willing to open source their ANS family for a one-time payment of iirc around $5 million. No need for the entire RAD stack.
      - brigade 10y ago
        Oops, his ballpark was $50 million. I obviously have no idea how much things cost. Still, I think many of the key ideas behind Kraken are out there and not patented. Zstd and lzfse already use ANS variants, for instance. But they're targeting different speed/compression tradeoffs, and aren't implemented as well as Kraken.
        eln1 10y ago
        Google VP10 and WebP are also planned to be ANS-based: https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/fb9186d68d498919b290d7f444560f44a1d8d1df https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/fb9186d68d49... https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/338781/ https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/338781/
  - _3u10 10y ago
    Think about how browsers could be improved if people were willing to pay $5 for them. Perhaps it's time to attempt to "pay" for such software via cooperative effort, eg. by the publisher setting a price for it, and then people paying $5. Why people will pay $5 for coffee they could make at home for 'free' but not for software is beyond me.
    - voltagex_ 10y ago
      A lot of the time people don't understand how expensive software is to develop.
    - overcast 10y ago
      It's a tangible thing. People STILL have issues paying for something that isn't physically in their hands.
      - dilap 10y ago
        Nah, I don't think it's that -- people spend crazy amounts of $ for non-tangible assets in F2P games.
        ferbivore 10y ago
        I don't think you're talking about the same subset of people here.
        dilap 10y ago
        what, people who use browsers and play games? there's got to be a pretty big overlap :) (though it's true that a large fraction of the people that play f2p games don't pay at all.) i know for me personally, one reason i've been reluctant to pay for software is just that they paying-for-software experience has been so terrible -- you have to clumsily reenter your payment information, you get emailed, sometimes slowly, a registration code, which you inevitably lose and breaks your software when you have to reinstall on a new computer, etc.
      - 10y ago
- feduzi 10y ago
  And this world needs better algorithms. It depends on what you put first: yourself or others.
  - tossaway1 10y ago
    Seems like a false choice. Plenty of people make a living doing things that help the world.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - feduzi 10y ago
      I didn't suggest just 2 options. It is a range of choices you get, starting from "you", ending with "others", pick any point. And sure, you're right "Plenty of people make a living doing things that help the world.", but why this "Kraken" is not Open Source then? Disclaimer: it is a discussion, I don't try to blame RAD Game Tools for not releasing the source of Kraken. Just curios of what others think.
  - jagtesh 10y ago
    Putting yourself first isn't a bad thing, especially where bread and butter is involved. Might I suggest dual licensing with a provision for free-to-use in non-commercial projects? Something similar to QT.
    - feduzi 10y ago
      Where did you get the idea that putting yourself first is a bad thing in my comment? I didn't mean that. What I was trying to say that you can pick any of this. At the end of the day you're the one who did the job, so it is up to you to decide what to do with it.
    - tossaway1 10y ago
      Qt is also free to use in commercial projects. I believe fftw had the sort of dual license you have in mind.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 10y ago
  I get what you mean, but it is still a downside for the format. "contact us" pricing is fine and all, but it means it's irrelevant to me most of the time. Their software could be the coolest; but the chances of them taking an individual seriously are probably low.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > some people need to eat. That'll need to be addressed some day: jobs are being automated away (yesterday typists, today cashiers, tomorrow drivers…), and those people need to eat too. Then there's artificial scarcity. Unlike food, software can be copied at negligible costs. Proprietary software puts arbitrary (and harmful) restrictions to that copying so that its developer can eat. When we get our act together and finally have a form of guaranteed income, we won't need copyright or patents any more, because there won't be any starving artist or author or developer. Proprietary software is harmful and needs to die. The need for proprietary software is harmful and needs to die. I long for the day they will.
  - unsigner 10y ago
    There's nothing artificial about the scarcity of people like cbloom and ryg, competent enough to produce something like Kraken. "getting your act together" sounds scary to someone who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe; I surely hope you don't get your act together.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      I was talking about the marginal cost of software. Of course the first copy is expensive. Of course talent is scarce. Of course time is scarce. Still, once it's done, copying it cost near nothing. If you raise that marginal cost above this natural "near zero", that creates an incentive to reinvent the wheel. Your actually scarce resource, talent, is being wasted on duplicated effort. Proprietary software causes duplicated efforts. Not an ideal use of our resources, don't you think? --- > "getting your act together" sounds scary to someone who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe Come on, that was a small group of people seizing power to the detriment of most everyone else. You sound like it's the only alternative to our corporate capitalism. Seriously?
- deepnet 10y ago
  RAD own the IP completely so they can dual-license GPL and Commercial. No non-Free commercial product or game would touch the GPL version so license revenues would continue. RAD-tech could then be used in Free software too, gaining publicity, adoption and developer mind-share. If innovation comes downstream in the Free version then RAD could license that from the coders for their commercial product. The good will from their initial gift of Freeing their tech may make upstream patch re-licensing on good terms. The social benefits of dual licensing should be encouraged by a GPL tax-relief akin to charitable write-downs.
- hhjkjhkjhhlkj 10y ago
  You know that open source and free (gratis) are different. Money can change hands.

Feel free to downvote me but some people need to eat. Game development doesn't really match well with the consultancy model of most commercial Open Source companies. Also the RAD guys are awesome, they've been putting out solid tools for years.

lazyjones 10y ago
All valid points, but think of all the open source projects, even browsers, that could be improved with this compression method if it wasn't proprietary. Perhaps it's time to attempt to "free" such software via a cooperative effort, e.g. by talking to RAD about a one-time payment for an open source release and organizing that as a Kickstarter project.
- vvanders 10y ago
  That's the rub though, you're talking about a one-time payment. That isn't a sustainable way to keep a company running. The amount of work that RAD puts into stuff like this, BINK, and their other tools if you wanted to do a OTP you'd be looking at something in the neighborhood of 50-60M. Everyone uses their stuff in games since it's that good. You'd have to replace licensing costs not only for each game but each platform those games ship on.
  - lambertsimnel 10y ago
    I wonder whether it would be viable GPLd with a proprietary licences available for a fee. I suppose that might still be costly and would be incompatible with the licences used by some FOSS projects.
  - brigade 10y ago
    I can't find the post now, but one of the RAD developers behind this codec (it's their 3rd ANS based codec I believe) has said that they would likely be willing to open source their ANS family for a one-time payment of iirc around $5 million. No need for the entire RAD stack.
    - brigade 10y ago
      Oops, his ballpark was $50 million. I obviously have no idea how much things cost. Still, I think many of the key ideas behind Kraken are out there and not patented. Zstd and lzfse already use ANS variants, for instance. But they're targeting different speed/compression tradeoffs, and aren't implemented as well as Kraken.
      - eln1 10y ago
        Google VP10 and WebP are also planned to be ANS-based: https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/fb9186d68d498919b290d7f444560f44a1d8d1df https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/fb9186d68d49... https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/338781/ https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/338781/
- _3u10 10y ago
  Think about how browsers could be improved if people were willing to pay $5 for them. Perhaps it's time to attempt to "pay" for such software via cooperative effort, eg. by the publisher setting a price for it, and then people paying $5. Why people will pay $5 for coffee they could make at home for 'free' but not for software is beyond me.
  - voltagex_ 10y ago
    A lot of the time people don't understand how expensive software is to develop.
  - overcast 10y ago
    It's a tangible thing. People STILL have issues paying for something that isn't physically in their hands.
    - dilap 10y ago
      Nah, I don't think it's that -- people spend crazy amounts of $ for non-tangible assets in F2P games.
      - ferbivore 10y ago
        I don't think you're talking about the same subset of people here.
        dilap 10y ago
        what, people who use browsers and play games? there's got to be a pretty big overlap :) (though it's true that a large fraction of the people that play f2p games don't pay at all.) i know for me personally, one reason i've been reluctant to pay for software is just that they paying-for-software experience has been so terrible -- you have to clumsily reenter your payment information, you get emailed, sometimes slowly, a registration code, which you inevitably lose and breaks your software when you have to reinstall on a new computer, etc.
    - 10y ago
feduzi 10y ago
And this world needs better algorithms. It depends on what you put first: yourself or others.
- tossaway1 10y ago
  Seems like a false choice. Plenty of people make a living doing things that help the world.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - feduzi 10y ago
    I didn't suggest just 2 options. It is a range of choices you get, starting from "you", ending with "others", pick any point. And sure, you're right "Plenty of people make a living doing things that help the world.", but why this "Kraken" is not Open Source then? Disclaimer: it is a discussion, I don't try to blame RAD Game Tools for not releasing the source of Kraken. Just curios of what others think.
- jagtesh 10y ago
  Putting yourself first isn't a bad thing, especially where bread and butter is involved. Might I suggest dual licensing with a provision for free-to-use in non-commercial projects? Something similar to QT.
  - feduzi 10y ago
    Where did you get the idea that putting yourself first is a bad thing in my comment? I didn't mean that. What I was trying to say that you can pick any of this. At the end of the day you're the one who did the job, so it is up to you to decide what to do with it.
  - tossaway1 10y ago
    Qt is also free to use in commercial projects. I believe fftw had the sort of dual license you have in mind.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
microcolonel 10y ago
I get what you mean, but it is still a downside for the format. "contact us" pricing is fine and all, but it means it's irrelevant to me most of the time. Their software could be the coolest; but the chances of them taking an individual seriously are probably low.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> some people need to eat. That'll need to be addressed some day: jobs are being automated away (yesterday typists, today cashiers, tomorrow drivers…), and those people need to eat too. Then there's artificial scarcity. Unlike food, software can be copied at negligible costs. Proprietary software puts arbitrary (and harmful) restrictions to that copying so that its developer can eat. When we get our act together and finally have a form of guaranteed income, we won't need copyright or patents any more, because there won't be any starving artist or author or developer. Proprietary software is harmful and needs to die. The need for proprietary software is harmful and needs to die. I long for the day they will.
- unsigner 10y ago
  There's nothing artificial about the scarcity of people like cbloom and ryg, competent enough to produce something like Kraken. "getting your act together" sounds scary to someone who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe; I surely hope you don't get your act together.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    I was talking about the marginal cost of software. Of course the first copy is expensive. Of course talent is scarce. Of course time is scarce. Still, once it's done, copying it cost near nothing. If you raise that marginal cost above this natural "near zero", that creates an incentive to reinvent the wheel. Your actually scarce resource, talent, is being wasted on duplicated effort. Proprietary software causes duplicated efforts. Not an ideal use of our resources, don't you think? --- > "getting your act together" sounds scary to someone who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe Come on, that was a small group of people seizing power to the detriment of most everyone else. You sound like it's the only alternative to our corporate capitalism. Seriously?
deepnet 10y ago
RAD own the IP completely so they can dual-license GPL and Commercial. No non-Free commercial product or game would touch the GPL version so license revenues would continue. RAD-tech could then be used in Free software too, gaining publicity, adoption and developer mind-share. If innovation comes downstream in the Free version then RAD could license that from the coders for their commercial product. The good will from their initial gift of Freeing their tech may make upstream patch re-licensing on good terms. The social benefits of dual licensing should be encouraged by a GPL tax-relief akin to charitable write-downs.
hhjkjhkjhhlkj 10y ago
You know that open source and free (gratis) are different. Money can change hands.