5 ms·

Unreal Engine license is along these lines: it's free if you are small / no significant revenue, and it's 5% of your revenue otherwise. That said, not every sh

by krasin 6y ago

Unreal Engine license is along these lines: it's free if you are small / no significant revenue, and it's 5% of your revenue otherwise. That said, not every shared-sources project would be used, if its license requires to pay royalty.

mhh__ 6y ago
Unreal isn't open source
- wodenokoto 6y ago
  What the parent is asking for is inherently not open source.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    For a moment I disagreed with this, so I'll add a link to the OSD [0] for anyone else who wants to quibble. Also a choice quote about Stallman [1]: "Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      Thanks, that led me to this intriguing origin story from Christine Peterson, involving some advanced people skills: (my italics) "Between meetings that week, I was still focused on the need for a better name and came up with the term "open source software." While not ideal, it struck me as good enough. I ran it by at least four others: Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, and Todd Anderson liked it, while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term "open" had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn't have a better idea... Later that week, on February 5, 1998, a group was assembled at VA Research to brainstorm on strategy. Attending – in addition to Eric Raymond, Todd, and me – were Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and attending by phone, Jon "maddog" Hall... Todd was on the ball. Instead of making an assertion that the community should use this specific new term, he did something less directive – a smart thing to do with this community of strong-willed individuals. He simply used the term in a sentence on another topic – just dropped it into the conversation to see what happened.... A few minutes later, one of the others used the term, evidently without noticing, still discussing a topic other than terminology. Todd and I looked at each other out of the corners of our eyes to check: yes, we had both noticed what happened... " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Peterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Peterson
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Stallman is about Free/Libre Software. Eric S. Raymond is about Open Source. There are somewhat subtle, but very important differences between their philosophies.
      - eru 6y ago
        And not even all Free Software is the same. Eg the Linux kernel deliberately uses GPL 2, and that community has rejected GPL 3.
- basedtho 6y ago
  it may not be free software, but it is open source
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.
    - wolfgke 6y ago
      As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).
      - stonemetal12 6y ago
        My understanding was "shared source" was MS's particular license for "source available" not their term for the practice.
        wolfgke 6y ago
        "Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Initiative&oldid=982661754 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses: - Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source] - Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source] - Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source] - Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source] - Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source] So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS. Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source". In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this: "However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."
ajuc 6y ago
Games using UE wouldn't work without desktop client so it's easy to licence it. A lot of business code can just as well run on server, and that works around basicall all the open source licences.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Except AGPL if I'm not mistaken ? So combine both I guess ?

by krasin 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago

Unreal isn't open source

wodenokoto 6y ago
What the parent is asking for is inherently not open source.
- roenxi 6y ago
  For a moment I disagreed with this, so I'll add a link to the OSD [0] for anyone else who wants to quibble. Also a choice quote about Stallman [1]: "Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    Thanks, that led me to this intriguing origin story from Christine Peterson, involving some advanced people skills: (my italics) "Between meetings that week, I was still focused on the need for a better name and came up with the term "open source software." While not ideal, it struck me as good enough. I ran it by at least four others: Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, and Todd Anderson liked it, while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term "open" had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn't have a better idea... Later that week, on February 5, 1998, a group was assembled at VA Research to brainstorm on strategy. Attending – in addition to Eric Raymond, Todd, and me – were Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and attending by phone, Jon "maddog" Hall... Todd was on the ball. Instead of making an assertion that the community should use this specific new term, he did something less directive – a smart thing to do with this community of strong-willed individuals. He simply used the term in a sentence on another topic – just dropped it into the conversation to see what happened.... A few minutes later, one of the others used the term, evidently without noticing, still discussing a topic other than terminology. Todd and I looked at each other out of the corners of our eyes to check: yes, we had both noticed what happened... " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Peterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Peterson
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Stallman is about Free/Libre Software. Eric S. Raymond is about Open Source. There are somewhat subtle, but very important differences between their philosophies.
    - eru 6y ago
      And not even all Free Software is the same. Eg the Linux kernel deliberately uses GPL 2, and that community has rejected GPL 3.
basedtho 6y ago
it may not be free software, but it is open source
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.
  - wolfgke 6y ago
    As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).
    - stonemetal12 6y ago
      My understanding was "shared source" was MS's particular license for "source available" not their term for the practice.
      - wolfgke 6y ago
        "Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Initiative&oldid=982661754 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses: - Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source] - Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source] - Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source] - Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source] - Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source] So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS. Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source". In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this: "However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."

ajuc 6y ago

Games using UE wouldn't work without desktop client so it's easy to licence it. A lot of business code can just as well run on server, and that works around basicall all the open source licences.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Except AGPL if I'm not mistaken ? So combine both I guess ?