59 ms·

It's a little bit of a strawman on your end. What you imagine to be the intention/argument on the other end isn't the one intended, so a comment like this one

It's a little bit of a strawman on your end. What you imagine to be the intention/argument on the other end isn't the one intended, so a comment like this one ends up dismissing the real issues brought up by people pointing out it's not FOSS. There is no shortage of discussion these days about independent devs feeling suckered into doing free support for corporations by way of FOSS. At least in that situation those programmers get some form of equity out of the bargain, given the terms of the actually-FOSS licenses. In the case of Defold, they've taken the Apache license and changed it to diminish even that in a way that's directly meant to benefit Defold. There's also the matter of people just not wanting companies to be able to reap undue rewards out of association with FOSS if they're not actually doing FOSS. It's honestly not a reaction that should be considered surprising. Want to hawk your wares as FOSS? Okay, FOSS licenses exist. Want to take one of those licenses and then alter it in such a way that it's no longer FOSS? Okay, then don't call it FOSS. It's a pretty fair deal.

britzl 6y ago
The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do. Next: The Defold Foundation is a foundation, not a corporation, and it is registered in Stockholm, Sweden. It has a different legal status than a corporation and while it is allowed to make a profit there are no stock holders or owners that can profit from the earnings. Also, as a foundation, it has a clear set of goals that cannot be altered: 1. Make the Defold software available to the public. 2. Make the Defold source code available free of charge to a third-party. 3. Manage the Defold software through updates, modifications, development and support. 4. Prevent the Defold software from being commercialised by a third-party. 5. Support the open source community and the use of open licenses. The reason we had to modify the Apache 2.0 license to add non-commercialization of the engine+editor was to fulfil goal #4. You might now think that it's pretty stupid to use a modified license since goal #5 says "support the use of open licenses". I agree. I would have preferred an unmodified OS license for the main repo. BUT the Defold Foundation also maintain ~60 other open source repositories, most of them with an MIT License. 32 of these are Defold game engine extensions to interface with things such as In-App Purchases, Analytics, Ads, Camera etc. Finally I want to say that we are not interested in "independent devs feeling suckered into doing free support". We obviously accept and appreciate contributions, but it is not our goal to make Defold into an engine which relies purely on community contributions to thrive. Defold depends on corporate sponsorships for long-term sustainability, not community contributions. And if we see prominent contributions coming from individuals we are very open to properly compensating said individuals from the funds of the foundation.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  > The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do. How about instead of telling me to stop doing something, you point to the place where I ever did? It's ridiculous that you responded to my comment complaining about strawmanning with... another (even worse) instance of it. There are so many misdirected arguments in this comments that it doesn't even make sense to try responding to them.
  - britzl 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but your entire post sure sounded like you are upset with Defold claiming the product to be FOSS when in fact we do nothing of the sort. If I misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise.

britzl 6y ago

The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do. Next: The Defold Foundation is a foundation, not a corporation, and it is registered in Stockholm, Sweden. It has a different legal status than a corporation and while it is allowed to make a profit there are no stock holders or owners that can profit from the earnings. Also, as a foundation, it has a clear set of goals that cannot be altered: 1. Make the Defold software available to the public. 2. Make the Defold source code available free of charge to a third-party. 3. Manage the Defold software through updates, modifications, development and support. 4. Prevent the Defold software from being commercialised by a third-party. 5. Support the open source community and the use of open licenses. The reason we had to modify the Apache 2.0 license to add non-commercialization of the engine+editor was to fulfil goal #4. You might now think that it's pretty stupid to use a modified license since goal #5 says "support the use of open licenses". I agree. I would have preferred an unmodified OS license for the main repo. BUT the Defold Foundation also maintain ~60 other open source repositories, most of them with an MIT License. 32 of these are Defold game engine extensions to interface with things such as In-App Purchases, Analytics, Ads, Camera etc. Finally I want to say that we are not interested in "independent devs feeling suckered into doing free support". We obviously accept and appreciate contributions, but it is not our goal to make Defold into an engine which relies purely on community contributions to thrive. Defold depends on corporate sponsorships for long-term sustainability, not community contributions. And if we see prominent contributions coming from individuals we are very open to properly compensating said individuals from the funds of the foundation.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
> The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do. How about instead of telling me to stop doing something, you point to the place where I ever did? It's ridiculous that you responded to my comment complaining about strawmanning with... another (even worse) instance of it. There are so many misdirected arguments in this comments that it doesn't even make sense to try responding to them.
- britzl 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but your entire post sure sounded like you are upset with Defold claiming the product to be FOSS when in fact we do nothing of the sort. If I misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise.