4 ms·

It is open source in the sense the source code is available for you to see. But probably not on the usage part.

wolco 6y ago
It is not open source in any sense. You can see it so that part is shared but if you try to use it you fall under a very different licease. If you try to modify and sell you can't. Modify and use you must pay. Use you must pay. Bait open source might be a better term.
- tekknik 6y ago
  This isn’t true, they encourage you to run source builds instead of the editor and you are free to modify the engine for your projects as needed. In fact they’re even generous enough to allow you to post up to 30 lines of engine code in public forums. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing
  - grogenaut 6y ago
    that in no way makes it "open source" in the common use of the term.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      Hmm, rereading my comment...nope didn’t say anything about it being open source....said something entirely different...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- matz1 6y ago
  In the sense of you can see the source, it is open source. Not everyone will agree with your definition of open source.
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    I'm not sure where people get the idea that they can assert something as a counterpoint on no basis. "That's just your opinion," is not a rational basis to disagree, especially when your counterpoint requires the implied basis (semantic) to be equally relevant to the original argument's basis (law). "Open source" isn't based on the semantic that the source code is public, its definition comes exclusively from a set of guidelines that limit the rights of the original creator to enforce a specific range of IP protections guaranteed to them by domestic and international laws. There are various types of public licenses, also known as GNU, that are considered "true open source" in that the original creator can only enforce some provisions like a source attribution credit in a modified distribution. And there are permission licenses, like the MIT License, which don't necessarily meet every guideline for FOSS, but do meet most of them. When it comes to IP, the only basis that matters is legal, as its the only basis that's universally enforceable. Laypersons can define "open source" however they please, but when engineers, devs, business, and legal discuss it, it has one definition, and that definition is well-established as exemptions from current IP law.
    - matz1 6y ago
      The rationale is people can have different opinion, preference, thinking. People do not always agree with a single definition. No entity has sole authority of a meaning open source.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    You're applying some general definition of "open", when the term "open source" has had a well understood definition for decades.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Distinction_from_free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Dist...
    - syockit 6y ago

It is not open source in any sense. You can see it so that part is shared but if you try to use it you fall under a very different licease. If you try to modify and sell you can't. Modify and use you must pay. Use you must pay. Bait open source might be a better term.

tekknik 6y ago
This isn’t true, they encourage you to run source builds instead of the editor and you are free to modify the engine for your projects as needed. In fact they’re even generous enough to allow you to post up to 30 lines of engine code in public forums. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing
- grogenaut 6y ago
  that in no way makes it "open source" in the common use of the term.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    Hmm, rereading my comment...nope didn’t say anything about it being open source....said something entirely different...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
matz1 6y ago
In the sense of you can see the source, it is open source. Not everyone will agree with your definition of open source.
- ooobit2 6y ago
  I'm not sure where people get the idea that they can assert something as a counterpoint on no basis. "That's just your opinion," is not a rational basis to disagree, especially when your counterpoint requires the implied basis (semantic) to be equally relevant to the original argument's basis (law). "Open source" isn't based on the semantic that the source code is public, its definition comes exclusively from a set of guidelines that limit the rights of the original creator to enforce a specific range of IP protections guaranteed to them by domestic and international laws. There are various types of public licenses, also known as GNU, that are considered "true open source" in that the original creator can only enforce some provisions like a source attribution credit in a modified distribution. And there are permission licenses, like the MIT License, which don't necessarily meet every guideline for FOSS, but do meet most of them. When it comes to IP, the only basis that matters is legal, as its the only basis that's universally enforceable. Laypersons can define "open source" however they please, but when engineers, devs, business, and legal discuss it, it has one definition, and that definition is well-established as exemptions from current IP law.
  - matz1 6y ago
    The rationale is people can have different opinion, preference, thinking. People do not always agree with a single definition. No entity has sole authority of a meaning open source.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  You're applying some general definition of "open", when the term "open source" has had a well understood definition for decades.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Distinction_from_free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Dist...
  - syockit 6y ago