5 ms·

He has worked hard to torch the bridges between Mojang and the open-source communities surrounding Minecraft. He doesn't like people hacking his code, or creati

He has worked hard to torch the bridges between Mojang and the open-source communities surrounding Minecraft. He doesn't like people hacking his code, or creating tools which interoperate with his releases. You might have noticed that some mods have been pulled into the main Minecraft tree; the person doing that pulling is always jeb, another Mojang employee. Notch himself isn't very happy about it. Projects like Bravo and Bukkit don't have any official endorsement or acknowledgement. Our channels of communication keep getting narrower and narrower. It's to the point where I've personally given up on actually talking to Mojang at all.

nkassis 15y ago
That's what I admire about John Carmack. He wants people to hack his games and do stuff with them. He pushes to release old engines as GPL (soon the Doom 3 engine will be released, offering some real game code to study for people wanting to get into game development)
- grey 15y ago
  Notch has a similar attitude, as expressed at http://www.minecraft.net/about.jsp http://www.minecraft.net/about.jsp, specifically "once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source."
  - 0x0x0x 15y ago
    The difference of course is that id has a track record.
    - atomicdog 15y ago
      The difference is id's sources aren't shitty Java applets that noone wants to look through ;) I kid, I kid...
    - piaskal 15y ago
      Id games have lot's of artwork, levels, etc. that is not released under GPL. In minecraft it's users that create the content. Id can release their engines under GPL without harming their sales.
    - beagle3 15y ago
      This comment would be meaningful when Minecraft has been out in the market for 3+ years.
norswap 15y ago
Hmm, if I am not mistaken they are soon to release a totally free modding membership, which will basically means access some (most ?) of the source code to modders. Actually, it's here : http://notch.tumblr.com/post/4955141617/the-plan-for-mods http://notch.tumblr.com/post/4955141617/the-plan-for-mods Also, I'd be curious to know your sources regarding these infos (particularly the "notch isn't very happy about it" part). You say "our channels of communication", are you somehow involved with Bukkit or Bravo ?
- MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
  The source code will be shared source, not open source; it will not be something which people can freely redistribute. I wrote Bravo. One of my big supporters is a guy who has been involved with Mojang's inner workings for a long time, and who has told many a horror story about the inner circles of MC communities. (Name withheld for privacy reasons.) There are Mojang employees, like mollstam (the webmaster), chilling in our IRC channel, but we're really not able to get much information transferred back and forth. Things like on-the-wire exploits and data leaks aren't received by upstream in a reasonable timeframe, which makes it painful to do good security.
cookiecaper 15y ago
I would really like to see Notch release the whole thing under a non-commercial license. They should set up a bug tracker, develop in public, etc., and otherwise run as a normal OSS project, with the caveat that it is not full Free Software because of the clause preventing commercial activity. I appreciate RMS and the Four Freedoms and what it's done for software, but I think we'd see a lot more code and a lot more relative freedom out there if someone set up a precedent and a pattern for other developers to follow in releasing source while maintaining revenue stream. It's not realistic to GPL everything, as the main developer can't make any money at that point. However, it is reasonable to release the source and say either "distribution must be limited to persons with a valid Minecraft license" or go totally non-commercial and only allow freeware derivatives (without separate license). In this age, nothing is lost by doing this; people who aren't going to abide the license are not going to abide the license anyway, and the object code is copied around and traded on pirate networks freely. So, what more is lost by providing the source to all paying customers under legal terms that forbid activity that could threaten Mojang's revenue stream? I can't say I know of anything, but the benefit would be huge. The only protection left against any digitized good is purely legal. If something gets online and a substantial portion of people have an interest in it, expect it to be irrevocably and freely traded in violation of any terms you establish. However, anything significant enough to be a threat to Mojang's profit stream will be vulnerable to legal remedies, and no major player (i.e., no one who'd have the money to pay Mojang) will run that risk when they know they will be sued and lose. It's just easier and cheaper to pay in the first place. If they're planning on releasing the source to the mod community they might as well just open it straight up because it's bound to get leaked anyway.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  I don't know how you can publicly release the source and expect a license header to prevent people from compiling it at home, and jilting you of a sale. You can't have an activation function either- your customers have the source! Of course, he could just give up on the revenue, but I am sure like any real human being, he has probably grown fond of his new cash cow, and I don't blame him. Especially as this is his first real hit.
  - 15y ago
kaffiene 15y ago
What exactly is it that you think Notch owes you here? Did he ask you to hack on his code? You're acting like your rights are infringed here in some way but I'm unsure where this sense of entitlement comes from?
leon_ 15y ago
Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? I understand modifying/augmenting open source - because it's a community effort and the result belongs to all of us. But creating modifications for commercial products you will never have any real rights on and then being angry with the owner when he tries to protect his baby/vision - that's just behind my horizon.
- codabrink 15y ago
  My thoughts on why I would want to mod something very popular is because I would almost immediately have a following if my product is good. Also, I'd be able to create a mod that has functionality that I desire, and I'd get the satisfaction out of using it. And lastly, I don't know if this is always true, but it certainly makes you feel more elite changing the behavior of someone else's code rather than my own. There may be other reasons I haven't mentioned.
- Goronmon 15y ago
  Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? For the same reason people use and license game engines made by other people instead of developing everything from scratch. A large chunk of some difficult work has been done for them.
- xiaoma 15y ago
  >Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? Why do people spend so much work into learning to sing someone else's song or arrange it instead of just writing their own? Maybe they like the work despite the fact that it's not their creation. Maybe they don't have the skill to create something from scratch but they can do a great deal standing on the shoulders of others. Maybe they just aren't that concerned with how lawyers divvy up who "owns" what ideas. It's probably a combination of the above.

nkassis 15y ago

That's what I admire about John Carmack. He wants people to hack his games and do stuff with them. He pushes to release old engines as GPL (soon the Doom 3 engine will be released, offering some real game code to study for people wanting to get into game development)

grey 15y ago
Notch has a similar attitude, as expressed at http://www.minecraft.net/about.jsp http://www.minecraft.net/about.jsp, specifically "once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source."
- 0x0x0x 15y ago
  The difference of course is that id has a track record.
  - atomicdog 15y ago
    The difference is id's sources aren't shitty Java applets that noone wants to look through ;) I kid, I kid...
  - piaskal 15y ago
    Id games have lot's of artwork, levels, etc. that is not released under GPL. In minecraft it's users that create the content. Id can release their engines under GPL without harming their sales.
  - beagle3 15y ago
    This comment would be meaningful when Minecraft has been out in the market for 3+ years.

norswap 15y ago

Hmm, if I am not mistaken they are soon to release a totally free modding membership, which will basically means access some (most ?) of the source code to modders. Actually, it's here : http://notch.tumblr.com/post/4955141617/the-plan-for-mods http://notch.tumblr.com/post/4955141617/the-plan-for-mods Also, I'd be curious to know your sources regarding these infos (particularly the "notch isn't very happy about it" part). You say "our channels of communication", are you somehow involved with Bukkit or Bravo ?

MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
The source code will be shared source, not open source; it will not be something which people can freely redistribute. I wrote Bravo. One of my big supporters is a guy who has been involved with Mojang's inner workings for a long time, and who has told many a horror story about the inner circles of MC communities. (Name withheld for privacy reasons.) There are Mojang employees, like mollstam (the webmaster), chilling in our IRC channel, but we're really not able to get much information transferred back and forth. Things like on-the-wire exploits and data leaks aren't received by upstream in a reasonable timeframe, which makes it painful to do good security.

cookiecaper 15y ago

I would really like to see Notch release the whole thing under a non-commercial license. They should set up a bug tracker, develop in public, etc., and otherwise run as a normal OSS project, with the caveat that it is not full Free Software because of the clause preventing commercial activity. I appreciate RMS and the Four Freedoms and what it's done for software, but I think we'd see a lot more code and a lot more relative freedom out there if someone set up a precedent and a pattern for other developers to follow in releasing source while maintaining revenue stream. It's not realistic to GPL everything, as the main developer can't make any money at that point. However, it is reasonable to release the source and say either "distribution must be limited to persons with a valid Minecraft license" or go totally non-commercial and only allow freeware derivatives (without separate license). In this age, nothing is lost by doing this; people who aren't going to abide the license are not going to abide the license anyway, and the object code is copied around and traded on pirate networks freely. So, what more is lost by providing the source to all paying customers under legal terms that forbid activity that could threaten Mojang's revenue stream? I can't say I know of anything, but the benefit would be huge. The only protection left against any digitized good is purely legal. If something gets online and a substantial portion of people have an interest in it, expect it to be irrevocably and freely traded in violation of any terms you establish. However, anything significant enough to be a threat to Mojang's profit stream will be vulnerable to legal remedies, and no major player (i.e., no one who'd have the money to pay Mojang) will run that risk when they know they will be sued and lose. It's just easier and cheaper to pay in the first place. If they're planning on releasing the source to the mod community they might as well just open it straight up because it's bound to get leaked anyway.

sliverstorm 15y ago
I don't know how you can publicly release the source and expect a license header to prevent people from compiling it at home, and jilting you of a sale. You can't have an activation function either- your customers have the source! Of course, he could just give up on the revenue, but I am sure like any real human being, he has probably grown fond of his new cash cow, and I don't blame him. Especially as this is his first real hit.
- 15y ago

kaffiene 15y ago

What exactly is it that you think Notch owes you here? Did he ask you to hack on his code? You're acting like your rights are infringed here in some way but I'm unsure where this sense of entitlement comes from?

leon_ 15y ago

Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? I understand modifying/augmenting open source - because it's a community effort and the result belongs to all of us. But creating modifications for commercial products you will never have any real rights on and then being angry with the owner when he tries to protect his baby/vision - that's just behind my horizon.

codabrink 15y ago
My thoughts on why I would want to mod something very popular is because I would almost immediately have a following if my product is good. Also, I'd be able to create a mod that has functionality that I desire, and I'd get the satisfaction out of using it. And lastly, I don't know if this is always true, but it certainly makes you feel more elite changing the behavior of someone else's code rather than my own. There may be other reasons I haven't mentioned.
Goronmon 15y ago
Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? For the same reason people use and license game engines made by other people instead of developing everything from scratch. A large chunk of some difficult work has been done for them.
xiaoma 15y ago
>Probably rather offtopic but: I've never understood the motivation behind "modding". Why put so much work into someone other's project instead of starting something own? Why do people spend so much work into learning to sing someone else's song or arrange it instead of just writing their own? Maybe they like the work despite the fact that it's not their creation. Maybe they don't have the skill to create something from scratch but they can do a great deal standing on the shoulders of others. Maybe they just aren't that concerned with how lawyers divvy up who "owns" what ideas. It's probably a combination of the above.