11 ms·

This is not open source. There is a well established definition of open source [0]. It includes "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" "You can not co

This is not open source. There is a well established definition of open source [0]. It includes "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" "You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine" does not meet (6). I'm not even going to start on the use of the term "free". [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

britzl 6y ago
True, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.
- sjamaan 6y ago
  That's not how it works. These terms have a specific meaning and using them for something that's not covered by the definition dilutes their effectiveness. On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    I don't think I agree - is the source publicly available? Yes? Then it's open source. I understand that Open Source Foundation has written a definition, good for them - but they do not have the monopoly or final say on defining the term or how it's used(or rather - I don't see why should I recognize and accept their definition).
    - detaro 6y ago
      They came up with the term, and it's extremely widely used that way. And large parts of the software community will assume malice on your part if you present something as open source that doesn't fit the definition. EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.
        zozbot234 6y ago
        Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.
        gpm 6y ago
        Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
        detaro 6y ago
        Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.
        SXX 6y ago
        As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.
        matz1 6y ago
        You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
        m0llusk 6y ago
        You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
    - davidjgraph 6y ago
      The source to this web page is publicly viewable, right-click->view page source. That doesn't make it open source. It is a standard copyrighted object. Publicly viewable != open source.
      - gambiting 6y ago
        I might be nitpicking, but viewing the source of this website HN does not give you the source code for Hacker News - there is plenty of other code working in the background that you can't see and which is required to make the website work. Clicking on "view page source" is more akin taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower, while "open source" would be if France posted the architectural plans in the open. But just because the plans are out in the open doesn't mean that someone doesn't hold copyright to them.
    - smichel17 6y ago
      > is the source publicly available? Yes? There's already a word for this, "source available", and by your own words it's a great fit for this scenario.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Thanks but I prefer the word "open source".
        dwheeler 6y ago
        You may prefer it, but that phrase already has a different standard meaning. Try again.
        matz1 6y ago
        standard according to who ? OSI? I disagree with them. There is no sole absolute authority of a word meaning.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        Almost everyone else, which is exactly how language is defined.
        whelming_wave 6y ago
        Given the efforts of you and others in this thread, it’s apparent that it isn’t “almost everyone else”.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        The US government also defines the term "open source software" as allowing any use, both in top-level executive branch policies and in law. See my lengthy post elsewhere here for the details.
        matz1 6y ago
    - oytis 6y ago
      There is a term for that: source-available software. It covers all the cases where you can get the source, but the license is too restrictive to be classified as open-source. "Open-source software" is a term, it has its meaning. Diluting it for the sake of marketing does not serve the community well.
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      Standard example. The source code for Windows 2000 is publicly available. Do you want to try telling Microsoft that it's open source? Don't break the accepted definition.
      - gambiting 6y ago
        Was it published by Mirosoft officially? Then yeah, absolutely, I'd argue that Windows 2000 is open source. Was it leaked by someone through shady means? Then no, of course it isn't open source, since accessing it is not necessarily legal depending on the jurisdiction.
        Intermernet 6y ago
        You didn't specify who published it, and that illustrates the point. Your definition of open source is a moving target. The accepted definition isn't.
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      No, this is not open source. It is "source available". When someone makes a blatantly false claim, we have another word for it: "fraud". A Rose by Any Other Name May smell as sweet, but lying is still not okay. The phrase "open source software" has a meaning. If you just mean source available, say that instead.
      - zwaps 6y ago
        There is a law defining what open source is? Because then it is indeed fraud! Otherwise it isn't.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        No, that's not what fraud is. Let me focus on the US legal system (different jurisdictions are different, though I suspect other jurisdictions are similar). Fraud is the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. The government does NOT try to officially define every phrase in the language, nor does it need to. That's not how it works. The issues are, (1) does there appear to be intentional deception, and (2) Would that deception result in unfair/unlawful gain or the loss of the legal right? Issue 2 is true by definition (open source software as the term is generally used always allows people to use the software for any purpose, including commercial users, and this doesn't provide that right, so by definition the victim is losing a legal right). So we're really only asking the first issue - is there intentional deception? I presume you'd argue that there's no deception. Only a court can decide that for sure, but if someone uses a phrase likely to mislead most people, that's at least getting dangerously close. So no, a government doesn't have to define the term. But even if you think that governments have to use the term that way... well, governments do define the term "open source software" just like OSI does. Again, I'll focus on the US, but this is by no means limited to the US. The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo of August 8, 2016 (M-16-21) "Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software" https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/me... defines the term "open source software" as follows: "Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" Notice that it can be "used by anyone" and it specifically references the OSI's definition. That memo included a mandate to release a certain amount of code as OSS - which meant the government had to define the term, and yes, they used the normal definition for it. That OMB memo cites the US Department of Defense (DoD)'s official policy on open source software that was released in 2009: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.... - it says in 2.2.b.1.iv "Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used." So the US DoD thinks that commercial use is by definition allowed by open source licenses. This wasn't even the first government memo about open source software; they had another one in 2003. I've been citing executive branch policies, but it's also in US law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810... section 875 requires the DoD to participate more fully in a "pilot program for open source software", and cites the policy and definition of OMB M-16-21 ("Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software") dated August 8, 2016. Yes, that's a US law, and it by reference defines "open source software" using the OSI definition. That is, commercial use must be allowed. So yes, the US government DOES have a definition of open source software, and it requires permission for any field of endeavor, just like OSI's definition does. It's been that way for almost 20 years. Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer. But I've cited my sources, look them up if you have questions.
  - britzl 6y ago
    Thank you for the feedback! It was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Defold is a free (doesn't cost anything) and open (you can extend and modify it) game engine with a permissive license and we invite the community to contribute on GitHub. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vanderZwan 6y ago
TBH, given the prevalence of "asset flipping" in the games industry I can kind of see why they went with staying defensive about commercializing the game engine itself. Also, given that the original engine is now free as well doesn't this change actually make the license a bit more GPL like? If you modify the Defold engine you can only give it away or keep it to yourself, basically.
- elsjaako 6y ago
  You're allowed to sell GPL software
  - vanderZwan 6y ago
    Ah, well that answers that. I still feel like the asset flipping issue is a legitimate concern though.
    - Gaelan 6y ago
      To expand a bit on what the parent said: you're allowed to sell GPL software, but the person who bought it is still welcome to give it away for free. The FSF is of the opinion that this can be a viable business model, but I'm not sure I believe that.
      - SXX 6y ago
        Once I heard there was a company called Red Hat...
  - m0llusk 6y ago
    Strictly speaking yes, but as this thread shows, any actual attempt to do so will result in a storm of angry and mean developers looking for any potential flaw. Is absolutely every change available and documented? Did the repository go offline for an hour last Sunday night? You are allowed to sell GPL software like you are allowed to press your fingers into a meat grinder. If you actually look at big software houses you will find a majority avoiding or backing away from GPL code in favor of BSD or Apache style licensing because dealing with GPL is such a wretched nightmare for commercial entities.
Intermernet 6y ago
I'm so tired of companies trying to co-opt the definition of open source. My (probably flawed) comparison is to the term "fair use". Yes, you can play all sorts of games to make those 2 words mean almost anything you want, but at the end of the day that term is defined by law, not by pedantry. "open source" has an accepted definition, and it's damaging to society to try to undermine it. If you think I'm exaggerating, please remember that you can probably thank open-source software for the growth of the Internet, the availability of previously restricted secure encryption and thousands of tools that you probably use to earn a living.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  For my own engine I was looking at my options for the future. If I would ever release it with restrictions, I would call it "source available" or something like that. I think as a community, we should also have a strict term for a project with source code, but too restrictive to be called open source. From my search, "Source Available" was the best terminology, unless someone knows a better one.
  - AGulev 6y ago
    But it's not just "Source Available". You can modify source code, fork it and use your own version of the engine, and so on. The only restriction that you can't SELL the engine itself. What is the right name for that if not "Open source"?
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      "permissive", "really awesome", "generous", many other things. Not "open source". That term has a meaning, and it's very important that meaning doesn't get diluted.
    - ensignavenger 6y ago
      Perhaps "permissive source available"?
  - Intermernet 6y ago
amelius 6y ago
Wow, I didn't realize that the estabilished definition of open source excludes the GPL: > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
- my123 6y ago
  The GPL doesn't place such restrictions.
  - dijit 6y ago
    People might wonder why. Since these statements sound incompatible. The GPL requires two things, mainly, if you're going to use something GPL in a closed source package. 1) Attribution. You can't just take and not comment. 2) Modifications should be made available under the same license. this means that if you're using GPL software and including it as a shared object, then you're fine. If you need to modify that software to make it work for you (including fixing bugs) then you need to make those elements available. This is different than insisting that anything that touches GPL code be GPL also. Some proprietary licenses do have provisions for this, which makes them GPL incompatible.
    - mysterydip 6y ago
      I thought that was the LGPL, but the GPL requires anything using it (as an include, not a standalone binary) to be GPL as well.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      This seems very misleading. A library released under the GPL cannot be used by non-GPL software. That's by design. It's the reason for the more permissive LGPL licence. edit For brevity I ignored dual licensing. If you release your library under both GPL and Apache, then things are of course different. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
mysterydip 6y ago
I just downloaded the wolfenstein 3D and doom sources yesterday and saw an interesting restrictive license: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/README/LICENSE.DOC https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/RE... I thought when Carmack originally released them they were GPL?
- aquova 6y ago
  The original Doom license is not a free open-source license, and is in fact fairly restrictive. However you are right, the game was re-licensed a few years later under GPL, making the game dual-licenses under GPL and the Doom License.
throwaway287391 6y ago
Not to defend the word choice by King, but IMHO the original sin was the definition of the generic-sounding phrase "open source" as anything other than "publicly readable source code". It's quite counterintuitive to anyone who knows what the words "open" and "source" mean in English that "open source" means anything beyond "the source is open". Perhaps it's a losing battle and a different name should be chosen?
m0llusk 6y ago
Honestly, I think you are mistaken because of a lack of contextual knowledge. The reality of game engines are that if someone were to take this source code and make another game engine, editor, or both out of it with some significant change or added feature, then almost any such change would tend to propagate through the code base so as to make this clause useless. Take the scripting core, for example. Make that work with a different language, multiple languages, or different libraries. Now watch how that changes the code. It would actually take a large effort to preserve enough to make that clause apply. What this is about is the potential for naive copies where someone takes the codebase and tries to make essentially the exact same product with no significant changes. That would be a source of confusion and competition and not really serve anyone. It is great to be enthusiastic about open source, but objecting to people sharing source code is rarely a good idea. I openly challenge anyone to make a functioning, useful fork of this project that would leave enough in place for this clause to apply.
- brainless 6y ago
  If you use standard, well known and industry accepted terms and then totally morph the meaning then it cripples the whole industry. You are talking about game engines and their complexities, which makes it hard to comply. There are compliant full fledged operating systems out there (I am sure you have heard of a few) that are actually "open source". So I am not sure why any company should get away with using the well known term in a misleading way.
  - m0llusk 6y ago
    You wish that these terms meant those things, but they do not. How is it that you come to speak for an industry? The source code is readily available and costs nothing. That is what open and free mean. Licensing is a different issue. Let's talk about the operating system angle. When I went to work at NeXT in 1993 there was a lot of GPL code in the system. By 1999 as Mac OS X approached release there was a frantic effort to remove all GPL code in favor of BSD or Apache licensed alternatives or in some cases nothing at all was favorable. If Mac OS had continued to make use of GPL code and components that could have made a big difference to the whole software development community in a strategic sense. Instead this kind of zealotry resulted in barriers. Not only do you not have the control you imagine, but your ongoing efforts to draw these lines makes everything that much more difficult and unpleasant.

britzl 6y ago

True, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.

sjamaan 6y ago
That's not how it works. These terms have a specific meaning and using them for something that's not covered by the definition dilutes their effectiveness. On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.
- gambiting 6y ago
  I don't think I agree - is the source publicly available? Yes? Then it's open source. I understand that Open Source Foundation has written a definition, good for them - but they do not have the monopoly or final say on defining the term or how it's used(or rather - I don't see why should I recognize and accept their definition).
  - detaro 6y ago
    They came up with the term, and it's extremely widely used that way. And large parts of the software community will assume malice on your part if you present something as open source that doesn't fit the definition. EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Just because it's widely use doesn't mean anything. No one as monopoly or single authority of open source definition.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Except they kinda do, seeing as OSI holds the literal trademark to open source.
        gpm 6y ago
        Not only do they not hold a trademark, they tried to acquire a trademark and failed because it was "too descriptive" (and I suspect because it was already in use). See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
      - detaro 6y ago
        Nobody has a single authority on what words mean. That doesn't mean terms don't have established meanings, and it'll make things difficult for you if you insist on using them differently.
      - SXX 6y ago
        As a private person you're free to use words as you wish, but in this case this is false advertising by a company. Go on try to sell some pork dish as "vegan" or "kosher" food and I'll look how fast you'll be brought to a court. This is no different.
        matz1 6y ago
        You can always try to brought any one for any reason to a court, doesn't mean you will succeed.
        m0llusk 6y ago
        You are being blinded by your political agenda. This source code is readily available and costs nothing, thus it is both open and free. Much of the machinery here is relevant to me, so I can learn about the nature of the system through the code and adapt design lessons to completely unrelated applications. Without this free and open code no such thing would be possible. I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
  - davidjgraph 6y ago
    The source to this web page is publicly viewable, right-click->view page source. That doesn't make it open source. It is a standard copyrighted object. Publicly viewable != open source.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      I might be nitpicking, but viewing the source of this website HN does not give you the source code for Hacker News - there is plenty of other code working in the background that you can't see and which is required to make the website work. Clicking on "view page source" is more akin taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower, while "open source" would be if France posted the architectural plans in the open. But just because the plans are out in the open doesn't mean that someone doesn't hold copyright to them.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    > is the source publicly available? Yes? There's already a word for this, "source available", and by your own words it's a great fit for this scenario.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Thanks but I prefer the word "open source".
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        You may prefer it, but that phrase already has a different standard meaning. Try again.
        matz1 6y ago
        standard according to who ? OSI? I disagree with them. There is no sole absolute authority of a word meaning.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        Almost everyone else, which is exactly how language is defined.
        whelming_wave 6y ago
        Given the efforts of you and others in this thread, it’s apparent that it isn’t “almost everyone else”.
        dwheeler 6y ago
        The US government also defines the term "open source software" as allowing any use, both in top-level executive branch policies and in law. See my lengthy post elsewhere here for the details.
        matz1 6y ago
  - oytis 6y ago
    There is a term for that: source-available software. It covers all the cases where you can get the source, but the license is too restrictive to be classified as open-source. "Open-source software" is a term, it has its meaning. Diluting it for the sake of marketing does not serve the community well.
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    Standard example. The source code for Windows 2000 is publicly available. Do you want to try telling Microsoft that it's open source? Don't break the accepted definition.
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Was it published by Mirosoft officially? Then yeah, absolutely, I'd argue that Windows 2000 is open source. Was it leaked by someone through shady means? Then no, of course it isn't open source, since accessing it is not necessarily legal depending on the jurisdiction.
      - Intermernet 6y ago
        You didn't specify who published it, and that illustrates the point. Your definition of open source is a moving target. The accepted definition isn't.
  - dwheeler 6y ago
    No, this is not open source. It is "source available". When someone makes a blatantly false claim, we have another word for it: "fraud". A Rose by Any Other Name May smell as sweet, but lying is still not okay. The phrase "open source software" has a meaning. If you just mean source available, say that instead.
    - zwaps 6y ago
      There is a law defining what open source is? Because then it is indeed fraud! Otherwise it isn't.
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        No, that's not what fraud is. Let me focus on the US legal system (different jurisdictions are different, though I suspect other jurisdictions are similar). Fraud is the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. The government does NOT try to officially define every phrase in the language, nor does it need to. That's not how it works. The issues are, (1) does there appear to be intentional deception, and (2) Would that deception result in unfair/unlawful gain or the loss of the legal right? Issue 2 is true by definition (open source software as the term is generally used always allows people to use the software for any purpose, including commercial users, and this doesn't provide that right, so by definition the victim is losing a legal right). So we're really only asking the first issue - is there intentional deception? I presume you'd argue that there's no deception. Only a court can decide that for sure, but if someone uses a phrase likely to mislead most people, that's at least getting dangerously close. So no, a government doesn't have to define the term. But even if you think that governments have to use the term that way... well, governments do define the term "open source software" just like OSI does. Again, I'll focus on the US, but this is by no means limited to the US. The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo of August 8, 2016 (M-16-21) "Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software" https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/me... defines the term "open source software" as follows: "Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" Notice that it can be "used by anyone" and it specifically references the OSI's definition. That memo included a mandate to release a certain amount of code as OSS - which meant the government had to define the term, and yes, they used the normal definition for it. That OMB memo cites the US Department of Defense (DoD)'s official policy on open source software that was released in 2009: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.... - it says in 2.2.b.1.iv "Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used." So the US DoD thinks that commercial use is by definition allowed by open source licenses. This wasn't even the first government memo about open source software; they had another one in 2003. I've been citing executive branch policies, but it's also in US law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810... section 875 requires the DoD to participate more fully in a "pilot program for open source software", and cites the policy and definition of OMB M-16-21 ("Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software") dated August 8, 2016. Yes, that's a US law, and it by reference defines "open source software" using the OSI definition. That is, commercial use must be allowed. So yes, the US government DOES have a definition of open source software, and it requires permission for any field of endeavor, just like OSI's definition does. It's been that way for almost 20 years. Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer. But I've cited my sources, look them up if you have questions.
- britzl 6y ago
  Thank you for the feedback! It was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Defold is a free (doesn't cost anything) and open (you can extend and modify it) game engine with a permissive license and we invite the community to contribute on GitHub. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

vanderZwan 6y ago

TBH, given the prevalence of "asset flipping" in the games industry I can kind of see why they went with staying defensive about commercializing the game engine itself. Also, given that the original engine is now free as well doesn't this change actually make the license a bit more GPL like? If you modify the Defold engine you can only give it away or keep it to yourself, basically.

elsjaako 6y ago
You're allowed to sell GPL software
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  Ah, well that answers that. I still feel like the asset flipping issue is a legitimate concern though.
  - Gaelan 6y ago
    To expand a bit on what the parent said: you're allowed to sell GPL software, but the person who bought it is still welcome to give it away for free. The FSF is of the opinion that this can be a viable business model, but I'm not sure I believe that.
    - SXX 6y ago
      Once I heard there was a company called Red Hat...
- m0llusk 6y ago
  Strictly speaking yes, but as this thread shows, any actual attempt to do so will result in a storm of angry and mean developers looking for any potential flaw. Is absolutely every change available and documented? Did the repository go offline for an hour last Sunday night? You are allowed to sell GPL software like you are allowed to press your fingers into a meat grinder. If you actually look at big software houses you will find a majority avoiding or backing away from GPL code in favor of BSD or Apache style licensing because dealing with GPL is such a wretched nightmare for commercial entities.

Intermernet 6y ago

I'm so tired of companies trying to co-opt the definition of open source. My (probably flawed) comparison is to the term "fair use". Yes, you can play all sorts of games to make those 2 words mean almost anything you want, but at the end of the day that term is defined by law, not by pedantry. "open source" has an accepted definition, and it's damaging to society to try to undermine it. If you think I'm exaggerating, please remember that you can probably thank open-source software for the growth of the Internet, the availability of previously restricted secure encryption and thousands of tools that you probably use to earn a living.

koonsolo 6y ago
For my own engine I was looking at my options for the future. If I would ever release it with restrictions, I would call it "source available" or something like that. I think as a community, we should also have a strict term for a project with source code, but too restrictive to be called open source. From my search, "Source Available" was the best terminology, unless someone knows a better one.
- AGulev 6y ago
  But it's not just "Source Available". You can modify source code, fork it and use your own version of the engine, and so on. The only restriction that you can't SELL the engine itself. What is the right name for that if not "Open source"?
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    "permissive", "really awesome", "generous", many other things. Not "open source". That term has a meaning, and it's very important that meaning doesn't get diluted.
  - ensignavenger 6y ago
    Perhaps "permissive source available"?
- Intermernet 6y ago

amelius 6y ago

Wow, I didn't realize that the estabilished definition of open source excludes the GPL: > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

my123 6y ago
The GPL doesn't place such restrictions.
- dijit 6y ago
  People might wonder why. Since these statements sound incompatible. The GPL requires two things, mainly, if you're going to use something GPL in a closed source package. 1) Attribution. You can't just take and not comment. 2) Modifications should be made available under the same license. this means that if you're using GPL software and including it as a shared object, then you're fine. If you need to modify that software to make it work for you (including fixing bugs) then you need to make those elements available. This is different than insisting that anything that touches GPL code be GPL also. Some proprietary licenses do have provisions for this, which makes them GPL incompatible.
  - mysterydip 6y ago
    I thought that was the LGPL, but the GPL requires anything using it (as an include, not a standalone binary) to be GPL as well.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    This seems very misleading. A library released under the GPL cannot be used by non-GPL software. That's by design. It's the reason for the more permissive LGPL licence. edit For brevity I ignored dual licensing. If you release your library under both GPL and Apache, then things are of course different. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

mysterydip 6y ago

I just downloaded the wolfenstein 3D and doom sources yesterday and saw an interesting restrictive license: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/README/LICENSE.DOC https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/RE... I thought when Carmack originally released them they were GPL?

aquova 6y ago
The original Doom license is not a free open-source license, and is in fact fairly restrictive. However you are right, the game was re-licensed a few years later under GPL, making the game dual-licenses under GPL and the Doom License.

throwaway287391 6y ago

Not to defend the word choice by King, but IMHO the original sin was the definition of the generic-sounding phrase "open source" as anything other than "publicly readable source code". It's quite counterintuitive to anyone who knows what the words "open" and "source" mean in English that "open source" means anything beyond "the source is open". Perhaps it's a losing battle and a different name should be chosen?

m0llusk 6y ago

Honestly, I think you are mistaken because of a lack of contextual knowledge. The reality of game engines are that if someone were to take this source code and make another game engine, editor, or both out of it with some significant change or added feature, then almost any such change would tend to propagate through the code base so as to make this clause useless. Take the scripting core, for example. Make that work with a different language, multiple languages, or different libraries. Now watch how that changes the code. It would actually take a large effort to preserve enough to make that clause apply. What this is about is the potential for naive copies where someone takes the codebase and tries to make essentially the exact same product with no significant changes. That would be a source of confusion and competition and not really serve anyone. It is great to be enthusiastic about open source, but objecting to people sharing source code is rarely a good idea. I openly challenge anyone to make a functioning, useful fork of this project that would leave enough in place for this clause to apply.

brainless 6y ago
If you use standard, well known and industry accepted terms and then totally morph the meaning then it cripples the whole industry. You are talking about game engines and their complexities, which makes it hard to comply. There are compliant full fledged operating systems out there (I am sure you have heard of a few) that are actually "open source". So I am not sure why any company should get away with using the well known term in a misleading way.
- m0llusk 6y ago
  You wish that these terms meant those things, but they do not. How is it that you come to speak for an industry? The source code is readily available and costs nothing. That is what open and free mean. Licensing is a different issue. Let's talk about the operating system angle. When I went to work at NeXT in 1993 there was a lot of GPL code in the system. By 1999 as Mac OS X approached release there was a frantic effort to remove all GPL code in favor of BSD or Apache licensed alternatives or in some cases nothing at all was favorable. If Mac OS had continued to make use of GPL code and components that could have made a big difference to the whole software development community in a strategic sense. Instead this kind of zealotry resulted in barriers. Not only do you not have the control you imagine, but your ongoing efforts to draw these lines makes everything that much more difficult and unpleasant.