4 ms·

Not to be picky, but the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the

Not to be picky, but the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process." The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Given that the list of folk who can compile for consoles is very limited, this would not be an existential burden for them. Indeed, even if they targeted a common development platform, like a PC or Mac, they would still be able to offer lots of value, and easily sell copies if there was a market for that. The vast majority of players would happily pay $49 for a compiled version of the game rather than go to the effort of compiling themselves. In other words, the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money - making money selling compiled GPL programs is not hard - assuming the program has some value to someone.

moftz 5y ago
Plus, you can open source the code but leave the textures, models, maps, whatever else as proprietary. iD software already did this with the source code of Doom, you can read it but unless you want to reskin the whole game, it's entirely unplayable.
the_af 5y ago
> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process."" It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary. If it's GPL'ed, other people can sell it, modify it, distribute it, and use it for their own purposes.
- bruce511 5y ago
  >> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.) There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...
  - bluecatswim 5y ago
    >(since the parent post was primarily about money) I don't think so, it was about making money through selling it as proprietary software.
  - the_af 5y ago
    I understood the key word was "proprietary" in the comment you refer to, with the side effect of also "making lots of money". I might have misunderstood.
goodpoint 5y ago
> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software ... > The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. If they release the source code it's not proprietary software anymore - by definition - and GPL achieved its goal. > the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money The GPL allows selling modified (FOSS) versions with extended contents e.g. artwork, music. But it also allows the original author to do so without succumbing to the competition from companies that leverage their dominant market position. With MIT freeloaders win.
- baq 5y ago
  it doesn't matter that much in case of games, because the code is not very useful without assets. famously multiple quakes were released as GPL software and it didn't really cost id software anything in lost sales. art and levels were NOT released as GPL. i'd say MIT license wouldn't impact the sales outcome at all.
outworlder 5y ago
> The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Upon request, and it just can't be less accessible than the binaries. You can charge for the source - just not more than what the binaries cost.
coptun 5y ago
You absolutely cannot ship GPL code on a console. The NDA license you sign with MS, sony, nintendo for their APIs are fundamentally incompatible with the GPL and prohibit code release.

moftz 5y ago

Plus, you can open source the code but leave the textures, models, maps, whatever else as proprietary. iD software already did this with the source code of Doom, you can read it but unless you want to reskin the whole game, it's entirely unplayable.

the_af 5y ago

> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process."" It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary. If it's GPL'ed, other people can sell it, modify it, distribute it, and use it for their own purposes.

bruce511 5y ago
>> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.) There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...
- bluecatswim 5y ago
  >(since the parent post was primarily about money) I don't think so, it was about making money through selling it as proprietary software.
- the_af 5y ago
  I understood the key word was "proprietary" in the comment you refer to, with the side effect of also "making lots of money". I might have misunderstood.

goodpoint 5y ago

> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software ... > The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. If they release the source code it's not proprietary software anymore - by definition - and GPL achieved its goal. > the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money The GPL allows selling modified (FOSS) versions with extended contents e.g. artwork, music. But it also allows the original author to do so without succumbing to the competition from companies that leverage their dominant market position. With MIT freeloaders win.

baq 5y ago
it doesn't matter that much in case of games, because the code is not very useful without assets. famously multiple quakes were released as GPL software and it didn't really cost id software anything in lost sales. art and levels were NOT released as GPL. i'd say MIT license wouldn't impact the sales outcome at all.

outworlder 5y ago

> The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Upon request, and it just can't be less accessible than the binaries. You can charge for the source - just not more than what the binaries cost.

coptun 5y ago

You absolutely cannot ship GPL code on a console. The NDA license you sign with MS, sony, nintendo for their APIs are fundamentally incompatible with the GPL and prohibit code release.