3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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.