6 ms·

For the longest time now I've always held a bit of bias towards closed-source software, but over time I'm slowly realizing that open source is probably the way

by vtange 9y ago

For the longest time now I've always held a bit of bias towards closed-source software, but over time I'm slowly realizing that open source is probably the way to go. If you look at the world as if it was running on a tech tree in a video game, making closed source technology only forces people to retrace your footsteps(re-research the tech, if you will) or worse, find a better alternative (leaving you and your creation in the dust). By open-sourcing, you effectively stake a flag with your name on it in the tech tree and incentivize people to use your creation as a foundation for future techs. Sure, people will be free to use copies of your work at will, but they still have to give credit to you, and won't be trying to do things differently. And that's not even mentioning that open-source stuff generally has a PR-boost compared to closed-source. If you make something closed-source, you will always have to worry about the appearance of an open-source competitor. I have seen closed-source stuff be completely eclipsed by open-source alternatives once the latter reached a critical level of quality. I mean think about it: Unreal Engine 4 is open source, would anyone start a closed-source project to compete against it? All the best minds will naturally ask you, 'Why not just work on UE4?' Yes you can fork it, but the public will always turn to the original of the fork unless your fork achieves something really different in a good way. So in a way, open-source is the most asshole-way you can do things cause it shuts down any idea of a copy/similar alternative to your work.

meheleventyone 9y ago
UE4 isn’t open source. You get source access with the license but it’s quite restrictive on what you can actually do with it. If you tried to setup a competing engine based on a fork of it you would quickly find yourself being sued. Godot would be an example of an open source game engine.
- vtange 9y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I believe UE4 is still a good example of how the PR-bias towards anything 'open-source'. All it took was a few headlines with "Unreal" and "open-source" and I naturally grouped it with the likes of Blender and Godot.
  - meheleventyone 9y ago
    Right but all that means is that Epic were able to exploit a lack of understanding. Not really that noble or exceptional. There is a PR bias towards open source because it’s seen as a selfless act to provide free software. Conflating that with commercial software such as UE4 actually takes away from that since it dupes the unwary.
- skellera 9y ago
  As you can see what happened to Silicon Knights. https://www.engadget.com/amp/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-epic-games-judgment/ https://www.engadget.com/amp/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-ep...
hannasanarion 9y ago
Tell that to 321 Media Player, who raked in millions by illegally copying VLC. Simply attaching a big bad license to your code doesn't prevent 3rd world shovelware farms from copying your work and making tons of money from it for free.
huebnerob 9y ago
Originating a widely-used open-source technology is a huge liability with virtually no financial benefit. It's a goal an engineer fetishizes and a product creator recoils at. I can't pay my rent with a pat-on-the-back buried in some acknowledgements screen, but hooray for my competitors being able to copy my product in a tenth of the time and effort. Also, if everything were open-source, then nothing would get brownie points just for being open-source.
- vtange 9y ago
  But if everything were open-source, anything new that's closed-source would get negative-brownie points cause it's not free. That's the thing about open-source though, it's a race to the bottom for market share. We saw it with React and Vue. I also get that open-source is a maintenance liability with issue and requests, but I also see plenty of open-source software that do well "provided as-is".
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  That's where copyleft (GPL-style) is better than BSD-style. Competitors can copy your product, but you can copy back. You presumably have some first-mover advantage in an existing userbase, so you can improve your product and retain those users + gain more. If you went with a BSD license and the competitor stayed closed you'd be up the creek.
  - criddell 9y ago
    That's how it's supposed to work, but what are you going to do when a start up on the other side of the planet takes your GPL code to build something great but doesn't share their changes?
dkersten 9y ago
UE4 is under a proprietary license where you can’t distribute your fork. It’s source is available, but it’s not “open source” in the copyleft/freedom sense that the phrase is usually used in. As for closed-source competitors: game engines have always provided their source under proprietary licenses to people who paid enough, so the only real difference now is that you can get access to it (but with limited rights) without paying anything. But besides a few big names (Unity, Unreal and CryEngine/Lumberyard) there are quite a few closed-source competitors in use that don’t have generally available source code, although many of these are used only within a publishers development studios (idTech usually got open sourced after some time but until then the code wasn’t available to the public, Game Maker Studio, Frostbite etc)

by vtange 9y ago

meheleventyone 9y ago

UE4 isn’t open source. You get source access with the license but it’s quite restrictive on what you can actually do with it. If you tried to setup a competing engine based on a fork of it you would quickly find yourself being sued. Godot would be an example of an open source game engine.

vtange 9y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I believe UE4 is still a good example of how the PR-bias towards anything 'open-source'. All it took was a few headlines with "Unreal" and "open-source" and I naturally grouped it with the likes of Blender and Godot.
- meheleventyone 9y ago
  Right but all that means is that Epic were able to exploit a lack of understanding. Not really that noble or exceptional. There is a PR bias towards open source because it’s seen as a selfless act to provide free software. Conflating that with commercial software such as UE4 actually takes away from that since it dupes the unwary.
skellera 9y ago
As you can see what happened to Silicon Knights. https://www.engadget.com/amp/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-epic-games-judgment/ https://www.engadget.com/amp/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-ep...

hannasanarion 9y ago

Tell that to 321 Media Player, who raked in millions by illegally copying VLC. Simply attaching a big bad license to your code doesn't prevent 3rd world shovelware farms from copying your work and making tons of money from it for free.

huebnerob 9y ago

Originating a widely-used open-source technology is a huge liability with virtually no financial benefit. It's a goal an engineer fetishizes and a product creator recoils at. I can't pay my rent with a pat-on-the-back buried in some acknowledgements screen, but hooray for my competitors being able to copy my product in a tenth of the time and effort. Also, if everything were open-source, then nothing would get brownie points just for being open-source.

vtange 9y ago
But if everything were open-source, anything new that's closed-source would get negative-brownie points cause it's not free. That's the thing about open-source though, it's a race to the bottom for market share. We saw it with React and Vue. I also get that open-source is a maintenance liability with issue and requests, but I also see plenty of open-source software that do well "provided as-is".
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
That's where copyleft (GPL-style) is better than BSD-style. Competitors can copy your product, but you can copy back. You presumably have some first-mover advantage in an existing userbase, so you can improve your product and retain those users + gain more. If you went with a BSD license and the competitor stayed closed you'd be up the creek.
- criddell 9y ago
  That's how it's supposed to work, but what are you going to do when a start up on the other side of the planet takes your GPL code to build something great but doesn't share their changes?

dkersten 9y ago

UE4 is under a proprietary license where you can’t distribute your fork. It’s source is available, but it’s not “open source” in the copyleft/freedom sense that the phrase is usually used in. As for closed-source competitors: game engines have always provided their source under proprietary licenses to people who paid enough, so the only real difference now is that you can get access to it (but with limited rights) without paying anything. But besides a few big names (Unity, Unreal and CryEngine/Lumberyard) there are quite a few closed-source competitors in use that don’t have generally available source code, although many of these are used only within a publishers development studios (idTech usually got open sourced after some time but until then the code wasn’t available to the public, Game Maker Studio, Frostbite etc)