3 ms·

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 sort

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
  I tend to like "source available with permissive license", but I agree that this class of license needs a catchier name. EDIT: maybe "Awesome Source" ;-)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
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 and open 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 Edit: typo

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
I tend to like "source available with permissive license", but I agree that this class of license needs a catchier name. EDIT: maybe "Awesome Source" ;-)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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 and open 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 Edit: typo