7 ms·

We are humbled by the mostly positive reactions to the news we shared earlier today but also sorry for misrepresenting the license under which we make the sourc

by britzl 6y ago

We are humbled by the mostly positive reactions to the news we shared earlier today but also sorry for misrepresenting the license under which we make the source code available. Defold is a free and open game engine with a permissive license. The source code is available on GitHub and we invite the community to contribute. We have updated the website to reflect this and we no longer use the term "Open Source" as to not confuse it with the OSD. The Defold license, complete with a summary of what you can and cannot do, can be seen on our license page: https://defold.com/license/ https://defold.com/license/ We have also Tweeted this: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Good move. Thank you for making that change.
ddevault 6y ago
Hey britzl, I appreciate the attempt to compromise on the terminology here. But, this falls flat pretty badly. "Free and open" is still trying to capitalize on the "free and open source" brand, and is going to mislead people into thinking it uses a FOSS license - seemingly deliberately. Can't you just call it "source available", which is the term we use for this kind of licensing model? It's really not okay to be capitalizing on the FOSS brand without being FOSS. It's a kick in the groin to the FOSS community when companies do this.
- fluffything 6y ago
  You seem to be confusing whether something is "open source" with "what kind of license does the code have". Something being "open source" does not imply anything about its license. Suggesting that only GPL-like software is allowed to use the term "open source" is crazy. It doesn't reflect the world we live in at all: there are thousands of projects on github without a license, or with some "free for non-military use"-type of license, or MIT/BSD-like licenses... EDIT: "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” (Richard Stallman, GNU Philosophy: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ). Not that Stallman did much better with "free software", which as the article argues, has the obvious meaning that 'the software is "for free"'. Having to avoid expressions like "free software" or "open source" because two organizations decided to appropriate common english expressions to give them a complicated meaning is nuts.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    No, I'm not. The term open source is defined here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Copyleft, free software, and open source all have different meanings, and GitHub has no restrictions on the license of software using its platform, and you're deliberately confoudning these things here to sow confusion. There are millions of different software licenses, yes, but that doesn't make them all open source. Give me a break. Is Windows "open source" by your reckoning? I has a license, after all, and I can decompile it, after all.
    - divs1210 6y ago
      Decompiling Windows is punishable by law.
      - fluffything 6y ago
        EULAs are not laws
        redblacktree 6y ago
        Aren't EULAs are enforced by the CFAA? Isn't that why Aaron Schwartz is no longer with us?
        freehunter 6y ago
        That’s not entirely clear, actually. Like the other comment says, the CFAA has been used to criminalize violations of EULAs in the past and the courts have been split on that idea: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-isnt-crime-eff-tells-court-again https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-is... Violating a EULA shouldn’t be a crime but it’s not always that clear cut.
        vonmoltke 6y ago
        We're talking about EULAs, but your article and the Swartz case concern Terms of Use, which are related but different. Terms of Use concern access to someone else's computer system, hence why overzealous lawyers and prosecutors have tried to expand the CFAA to cover them. EULAs concern what an end user can do with a piece of software on their own system or systems they control. I don't see how this intersects the CFAA at all.
- davidjgraph 6y ago
  The original feedback was largely requesting to not say "open source" and they've changed this. Much as I respect the position you always take on FOSS, the current position is a reasonable compromise between the original two standpoints, so I lower my weapon.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I don't really see this as an improvement over the previous situation. It's just misleading in a different way. In fact, it's worse: as far as I could tell, the term "open source" was used sparingly, to the point where I wasn't going to make a fuss about it when I saw this. Now, the term "free and open", which is equally misleading, is used much more prominently than "open source" ever was.
    - britzl 6y ago
      Not true. I went over the entire website and searched for "open source" and changed the wording. I did not add a bunch of extra "free and open" just for fun.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        My mistake, then.
    - billfruit 6y ago
      I think many here are being way too pedantic with this matter.
- britzl 6y ago
  Defold is Free, meaning that it doesn't cost anything to use and you don't have to pay any royalties. Defold is Open, meaning that it is possible to modify and extend. It is actually possible to extend the engine even without source code access thanks to our native extension system.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >Defold is Open, meaning that it is possible to modify and extend. It is actually possible to extend the engine even without source code access thanks to our native extension system The word for this is "extensible". Please stop repurposing language to capitalize on a brand you aren't rightfully a part of. This is gaslighting. I really want to like and support this project, but you've got to cut this crap out, man. Publishing a source available project is admirable and worthwhile in its own right, be satisfied with that so that we can praise you for it in good faith. How much do you owe to the FOSS community? The least you could do in return is not backstab us. Do the right thing.
    - karlp 6y ago
      As someone without a bone in the fight, I find your language quite inflammatory, it's a bit excessive to use "backstab" and "gaslighting" IMO.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        That's what this is. If you don't want to be asked to stop gaslighting people, you shouldn't gaslight people.
        teraflop 6y ago
        What, in your opinion, does the word "gaslighting" mean?
        ddevault 6y ago
        Manipulating facts to mislead people into behaviors which serve your self-interests.
Todd 6y ago
Thank you for this. I know it's a big undertaking to make a large project available to the community like this. Please don't let the side show discourage you.
optymizer 6y ago
FYI there is "opensource" in the URL ("https://www.defold.com/opensource" https://www.defold.com/opensource") used in the license file at https://www.defold.com/license https://www.defold.com/license. Note: I'm not taking part in the OSS/FOSS drama, I'm just making a note that if you did want to change all occurrences, you might want to consider that one as well.

by britzl 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

Good move. Thank you for making that change.

ddevault 6y ago

Hey britzl, I appreciate the attempt to compromise on the terminology here. But, this falls flat pretty badly. "Free and open" is still trying to capitalize on the "free and open source" brand, and is going to mislead people into thinking it uses a FOSS license - seemingly deliberately. Can't you just call it "source available", which is the term we use for this kind of licensing model? It's really not okay to be capitalizing on the FOSS brand without being FOSS. It's a kick in the groin to the FOSS community when companies do this.

fluffything 6y ago
You seem to be confusing whether something is "open source" with "what kind of license does the code have". Something being "open source" does not imply anything about its license. Suggesting that only GPL-like software is allowed to use the term "open source" is crazy. It doesn't reflect the world we live in at all: there are thousands of projects on github without a license, or with some "free for non-military use"-type of license, or MIT/BSD-like licenses... EDIT: "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” (Richard Stallman, GNU Philosophy: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ). Not that Stallman did much better with "free software", which as the article argues, has the obvious meaning that 'the software is "for free"'. Having to avoid expressions like "free software" or "open source" because two organizations decided to appropriate common english expressions to give them a complicated meaning is nuts.
- ddevault 6y ago
  No, I'm not. The term open source is defined here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Copyleft, free software, and open source all have different meanings, and GitHub has no restrictions on the license of software using its platform, and you're deliberately confoudning these things here to sow confusion. There are millions of different software licenses, yes, but that doesn't make them all open source. Give me a break. Is Windows "open source" by your reckoning? I has a license, after all, and I can decompile it, after all.
  - divs1210 6y ago
    Decompiling Windows is punishable by law.
    - fluffything 6y ago
      EULAs are not laws
      - redblacktree 6y ago
        Aren't EULAs are enforced by the CFAA? Isn't that why Aaron Schwartz is no longer with us?
      - freehunter 6y ago
        That’s not entirely clear, actually. Like the other comment says, the CFAA has been used to criminalize violations of EULAs in the past and the courts have been split on that idea: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-isnt-crime-eff-tells-court-again https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-is... Violating a EULA shouldn’t be a crime but it’s not always that clear cut.
        vonmoltke 6y ago
        We're talking about EULAs, but your article and the Swartz case concern Terms of Use, which are related but different. Terms of Use concern access to someone else's computer system, hence why overzealous lawyers and prosecutors have tried to expand the CFAA to cover them. EULAs concern what an end user can do with a piece of software on their own system or systems they control. I don't see how this intersects the CFAA at all.
davidjgraph 6y ago
The original feedback was largely requesting to not say "open source" and they've changed this. Much as I respect the position you always take on FOSS, the current position is a reasonable compromise between the original two standpoints, so I lower my weapon.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I don't really see this as an improvement over the previous situation. It's just misleading in a different way. In fact, it's worse: as far as I could tell, the term "open source" was used sparingly, to the point where I wasn't going to make a fuss about it when I saw this. Now, the term "free and open", which is equally misleading, is used much more prominently than "open source" ever was.
  - britzl 6y ago
    Not true. I went over the entire website and searched for "open source" and changed the wording. I did not add a bunch of extra "free and open" just for fun.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      My mistake, then.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    I think many here are being way too pedantic with this matter.
britzl 6y ago
Defold is Free, meaning that it doesn't cost anything to use and you don't have to pay any royalties. Defold is Open, meaning that it is possible to modify and extend. It is actually possible to extend the engine even without source code access thanks to our native extension system.
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Defold is Open, meaning that it is possible to modify and extend. It is actually possible to extend the engine even without source code access thanks to our native extension system The word for this is "extensible". Please stop repurposing language to capitalize on a brand you aren't rightfully a part of. This is gaslighting. I really want to like and support this project, but you've got to cut this crap out, man. Publishing a source available project is admirable and worthwhile in its own right, be satisfied with that so that we can praise you for it in good faith. How much do you owe to the FOSS community? The least you could do in return is not backstab us. Do the right thing.
  - karlp 6y ago
    As someone without a bone in the fight, I find your language quite inflammatory, it's a bit excessive to use "backstab" and "gaslighting" IMO.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      That's what this is. If you don't want to be asked to stop gaslighting people, you shouldn't gaslight people.
      - teraflop 6y ago
        What, in your opinion, does the word "gaslighting" mean?
        ddevault 6y ago
        Manipulating facts to mislead people into behaviors which serve your self-interests.

Todd 6y ago

Thank you for this. I know it's a big undertaking to make a large project available to the community like this. Please don't let the side show discourage you.

optymizer 6y ago

FYI there is "opensource" in the URL ("https://www.defold.com/opensource" https://www.defold.com/opensource") used in the license file at https://www.defold.com/license https://www.defold.com/license. Note: I'm not taking part in the OSS/FOSS drama, I'm just making a note that if you did want to change all occurrences, you might want to consider that one as well.