4 ms·

I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.

by malka 5y ago

trasz 5y ago
Still, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?
- ric2b 5y ago
  Less time wasted on free support requests would be one way.
- malka 5y ago
  The answer is in the question.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Not really.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  If you read between the lines, this is the very reason why Id released the source code as GPL instead of BSD: They didn't want their competitors to take their engine, make proprietary improvements, and deprive Id of revenue using their own work.
  - thrower123 5y ago
    They didn't release any of this code as open-source until they'd wrung every dime of engine licensing out of it and it had been completely obsoleted. It's free-as-in-couch software.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    They never open-sourced any of their engines until after they had published a game with the next iteration of their engine.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      Sure, but that just means they had multiple methods of ensuring they had created a suitable moat against competitors, the GPL being just one of them.
- drran 5y ago
  1) If I and said did not collaborate, then it will not help me, or anyone else. 2) If said corp refuse to collaborate with me and will use my code for free instead, then it will not help me, or anyone else, except said corp. Why I should care about (2)?
  - trasz 5y ago
    Because - as it happens fairly frequently in BSD land - said corp might change their minds and contribute back, code and/or money.
    - ric2b 5y ago
      Ok, when they change their minds they can start using GPL code with no issues.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  1) it helps their competitors 2) they may change their mind 3) they may pay for dual licensing (in case of work by a single author) In general interests of unfriendly corporations and mine are more likely to be opposite than shared.

I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.

by malka 5y ago

I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.

trasz 5y ago

Still, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?

ric2b 5y ago
Less time wasted on free support requests would be one way.
malka 5y ago
The answer is in the question.
- trasz 5y ago
  Not really.
mannerheim 5y ago
If you read between the lines, this is the very reason why Id released the source code as GPL instead of BSD: They didn't want their competitors to take their engine, make proprietary improvements, and deprive Id of revenue using their own work.
- thrower123 5y ago
  They didn't release any of this code as open-source until they'd wrung every dime of engine licensing out of it and it had been completely obsoleted. It's free-as-in-couch software.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  They never open-sourced any of their engines until after they had published a game with the next iteration of their engine.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    Sure, but that just means they had multiple methods of ensuring they had created a suitable moat against competitors, the GPL being just one of them.
drran 5y ago
1) If I and said did not collaborate, then it will not help me, or anyone else. 2) If said corp refuse to collaborate with me and will use my code for free instead, then it will not help me, or anyone else, except said corp. Why I should care about (2)?
- trasz 5y ago
  Because - as it happens fairly frequently in BSD land - said corp might change their minds and contribute back, code and/or money.
  - ric2b 5y ago
    Ok, when they change their minds they can start using GPL code with no issues.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
matkoniecz 5y ago
1) it helps their competitors 2) they may change their mind 3) they may pay for dual licensing (in case of work by a single author) In general interests of unfriendly corporations and mine are more likely to be opposite than shared.