6 ms·

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

by malka 5y ago

rvnx 5y ago
It doesn't solve the issue. GPL people would have taken the BSD code, do a minor change, and force everyone to redistribute the source-code under GPL. Really terrible license.
- markus92 5y ago
  They'd only own the copyright on the minor change so can't force everyone to use GPL on all of the code.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  What is the exact scenario you're against? If GPL changes are added to a BSD codebase, it's still possible to use the BSD part of the code under the terms of that license. The GPL doesn't "infect" the rest of the work, either in the present or historically. You aren't "forced" to re-distribute the source code unless you want to use the GPL changes - which is just how copyright works in the first place.
- fazgl 5y ago
  This occurs very rarely and provokes a loud counter reaction from the BSD people.
  - donkeybeer 5y ago
    It seems such bsd people then don't believe in the power granted by the bsd license to others using it as they wish to. Ironically. May I suggest GPL for their next project?
    - nmz 5y ago
      Whining is not illegal, if you can whine about a license change, you should.
      - donkeybeer 5y ago
        But by the very act of making their code bsd, they have removed any valid excuse to whine. Anything that happens is just a natural consequence of their decision: whether that be someone making bank on your code without giving you any of the changes back or GPL projects GPLifying a fork of you.
PoignardAzur 5y ago
I don't see how. Working as intended would be "And then the gamedev landscape is dominated by open-source tools because you can't make closed-source tools in-house without giving up on the ecosystem." This is very much not the case today, the market is dominated by closed-source engines (sorry Godot). Seeing as that scenario didn't come to pass, the only result is a net loss of games that could have been made (or made cheaper) by reusing Carmack's code and instead weren't. Maybe some of these games would have been proprietary, but it's still a net loss that they weren't made at all.
- malka 5y ago
  I m sure it is a net loss for people who could have benefited from free work indeed.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    I don't think you understand Gp's point that this in turn results in a net loss for everyone else.
    - malka 5y ago
      People are not entitled to games created by free work. So it is not a 'net' loss.
      - scrollaway 5y ago
        Not entitled? Correct. Not a loss? Incorrect.
        malka 5y ago
        if you want to use this argument, then the end of slavery was also a loss for users.
        scrollaway 5y ago
nivenkos 5y ago
I guess his point is that the we haven't seen a big community fork of the code with FOSS games being released, etc. There's been a handful, but nothing like the flurry of Unity games, etc.

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

by malka 5y ago

> "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.

rvnx 5y ago

It doesn't solve the issue. GPL people would have taken the BSD code, do a minor change, and force everyone to redistribute the source-code under GPL. Really terrible license.

markus92 5y ago
They'd only own the copyright on the minor change so can't force everyone to use GPL on all of the code.
ivanbakel 5y ago
What is the exact scenario you're against? If GPL changes are added to a BSD codebase, it's still possible to use the BSD part of the code under the terms of that license. The GPL doesn't "infect" the rest of the work, either in the present or historically. You aren't "forced" to re-distribute the source code unless you want to use the GPL changes - which is just how copyright works in the first place.
fazgl 5y ago
This occurs very rarely and provokes a loud counter reaction from the BSD people.
- donkeybeer 5y ago
  It seems such bsd people then don't believe in the power granted by the bsd license to others using it as they wish to. Ironically. May I suggest GPL for their next project?
  - nmz 5y ago
    Whining is not illegal, if you can whine about a license change, you should.
    - donkeybeer 5y ago
      But by the very act of making their code bsd, they have removed any valid excuse to whine. Anything that happens is just a natural consequence of their decision: whether that be someone making bank on your code without giving you any of the changes back or GPL projects GPLifying a fork of you.

PoignardAzur 5y ago

I don't see how. Working as intended would be "And then the gamedev landscape is dominated by open-source tools because you can't make closed-source tools in-house without giving up on the ecosystem." This is very much not the case today, the market is dominated by closed-source engines (sorry Godot). Seeing as that scenario didn't come to pass, the only result is a net loss of games that could have been made (or made cheaper) by reusing Carmack's code and instead weren't. Maybe some of these games would have been proprietary, but it's still a net loss that they weren't made at all.

malka 5y ago
I m sure it is a net loss for people who could have benefited from free work indeed.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  I don't think you understand Gp's point that this in turn results in a net loss for everyone else.
  - malka 5y ago
    People are not entitled to games created by free work. So it is not a 'net' loss.
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      Not entitled? Correct. Not a loss? Incorrect.
      - malka 5y ago
        if you want to use this argument, then the end of slavery was also a loss for users.
        scrollaway 5y ago

nivenkos 5y ago

I guess his point is that the we haven't seen a big community fork of the code with FOSS games being released, etc. There's been a handful, but nothing like the flurry of Unity games, etc.