3 ms·

being open doesn't mean it becomes free to use, you can still sell your licenses https://www.aseprite.org/ https://www.aseprite.org/ successful product, and i

being open doesn't mean it becomes free to use, you can still sell your licenses https://www.aseprite.org/ https://www.aseprite.org/ successful product, and is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite there are many examples like that being open source allows your users to participate in the development, fixing things, and adding new features the company wouldn't have done themselves because: lack of budget, or "too risky" this is why i dropped Sublime Text for a different editor, i was waiting years for them to fix a feature that annoy me so bad (file preview when you search), and it still not fixed, closed source mean i can't do shit i no longer use proprietary software for that reason, whenever possible i decide to use one that is open source also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption same for game engines, people preferred open source solutions for decades, the closed proprietary ones all died (minus Unity but they provide source in exchange for a license, wich i believe will be made fully open in few years, they will have no choice) for existing business it is understandable if they started closed, and use themselves licensed code/product but for new businesses, if you don't consider open source, you start with a massive disadvantage, worse, it makes you impossible to grow

nsomaru 5y ago
I’m curious why you say Unity will have no choice but to go open source?
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  it already is happening (kinda), they are modularizing their engine, and all the new parts are made open source biggest part what their graphics stack https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics (only the scripting part) competition is growing, unreal is fully open source, and more and more people have been asking for the source, there was even some drama few years ago when unity DMCA'd (if i remember correctly) a reference source code of unity engine (decompiled) on github, then unity made it officially available on their github: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference after users complained about it wich already proved effective and caused them to fix a huge performance issue shortly after: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/1 https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/...
  - gernb 5y ago
    unreal is not "open source". "open source" has a specific meaning and Unreal doesn't fit. Some people call unreal "source available" https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
pabs3 5y ago
aseprite isn't under an "Open Source" license, but a EULA that even prohibits redistribution. I'd call it "shared source" or "public source" rather than "open source" https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt
filmgirlcw 5y ago
> also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption I strongly disagree. Blender is a wonderful story and a wonderful team but it’s truly the unicorn in the FOSS software space. Industry adopted Blender because it has evolved into being a really good tool for the job, is frequently updated (thanks in part to those corporate sponsorships that most pieces of software don’t get, unfortunately), and because it is good software. Thinking the license played any role in that, I think is foolish. Industry, particularly the video and vfx industry, is not moved by ideology. It’s about what works, what is fastest and what can do things the best way. The editing world has relied on proprietary software since time immemorial and the two cases where we’ve seen more adoption of FOSS tools (Blender, OBS) are both recent (and again, I would argue are largely exceptions b/c the software is good and usable which is not the case for most video packages that are open source) and in tandem with existing tools, not a replacement for those tools. As I said in another comment, I think in many cases, the open development model is best. But I also recognize that it isn’t always the right business move. And in this case, when you’re talking about an industry that doesn’t have any ideological ties towards doing things the open way, I don’t think it’s an idea that makes a lot of sense. Even if it would be nice to see.
- yakubin 5y ago
  Exactly. What's more I prefer for the software I use to be proprietary, because then I know that me paying its price is enough to support its ongoing maintenance and development. When it comes to open source projects seeking donations, I'd need to pay incomparably more, knowing that most users don't pay. With the proprietary model everyone pays their fair share to keep the project afloat. With donations an army of freeloaders bears the benefits of the funding provided by few who pull all the weight. So if a project is donation-funded I look instead for a proprietary one, because it will be more likely to stay afloat in the future and return my investment of learning it and organizing my workflow around it instead of becoming abandonware.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    May I suggest an alternative strategy/view? Don't think of it as "freeloaders" vs "few who pull all the weight", and don't think you should be paying to "keep things afloat". Instead, keep whatever tool is best for you at the moment (even if proprietary) but don't stop looking/fomenting the development of a viable free alternative. If you find any project attempting to build an alternative for the commercial ones, follow up with (a) small financial contributions, (b) periodic best-effort attempts/evaluations of the tool as the alternative and (c) feedback on what is missing for it to become your main alternative. Unlike businesses, free software projects don't need to have a short-term ROI and they don't need to give up if the venture is not profitable. But your small contributions will at least show as a signal that the developers have a potential audience, and your feedback can also provide them with guidance/help them iterate faster on what is relevant. Aside from marketing materials and mission statements, companies rarely care about their customers and they will not hold you in high regard just because you are giving them money. If they find themselves in a position where they can make more profit by screwing you over, they will. Conversely, if the free alternative does become a hit, you and everyone else gets to benefit. If it doesn't, it can be picked up later by other people. And even if it fails completely, you didn't lose much. It's the type of strategy that gives you very little downside, a huge upside and also gives you bragging rights and the feeling of a righteous soul. :)

nsomaru 5y ago

I’m curious why you say Unity will have no choice but to go open source?

Shadonototra 5y ago
it already is happening (kinda), they are modularizing their engine, and all the new parts are made open source biggest part what their graphics stack https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/Graphics (only the scripting part) competition is growing, unreal is fully open source, and more and more people have been asking for the source, there was even some drama few years ago when unity DMCA'd (if i remember correctly) a reference source code of unity engine (decompiled) on github, then unity made it officially available on their github: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference after users complained about it wich already proved effective and caused them to fix a huge performance issue shortly after: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/1 https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference/pull/...
- gernb 5y ago
  unreal is not "open source". "open source" has a specific meaning and Unreal doesn't fit. Some people call unreal "source available" https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+definition
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

pabs3 5y ago

aseprite isn't under an "Open Source" license, but a EULA that even prohibits redistribution. I'd call it "shared source" or "public source" rather than "open source" https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/blob/main/EULA.txt

filmgirlcw 5y ago

> also the industry adopting Blender is a clear sign that a product being open source plays a big role for adoption I strongly disagree. Blender is a wonderful story and a wonderful team but it’s truly the unicorn in the FOSS software space. Industry adopted Blender because it has evolved into being a really good tool for the job, is frequently updated (thanks in part to those corporate sponsorships that most pieces of software don’t get, unfortunately), and because it is good software. Thinking the license played any role in that, I think is foolish. Industry, particularly the video and vfx industry, is not moved by ideology. It’s about what works, what is fastest and what can do things the best way. The editing world has relied on proprietary software since time immemorial and the two cases where we’ve seen more adoption of FOSS tools (Blender, OBS) are both recent (and again, I would argue are largely exceptions b/c the software is good and usable which is not the case for most video packages that are open source) and in tandem with existing tools, not a replacement for those tools. As I said in another comment, I think in many cases, the open development model is best. But I also recognize that it isn’t always the right business move. And in this case, when you’re talking about an industry that doesn’t have any ideological ties towards doing things the open way, I don’t think it’s an idea that makes a lot of sense. Even if it would be nice to see.

yakubin 5y ago
Exactly. What's more I prefer for the software I use to be proprietary, because then I know that me paying its price is enough to support its ongoing maintenance and development. When it comes to open source projects seeking donations, I'd need to pay incomparably more, knowing that most users don't pay. With the proprietary model everyone pays their fair share to keep the project afloat. With donations an army of freeloaders bears the benefits of the funding provided by few who pull all the weight. So if a project is donation-funded I look instead for a proprietary one, because it will be more likely to stay afloat in the future and return my investment of learning it and organizing my workflow around it instead of becoming abandonware.
- rglullis 5y ago
  May I suggest an alternative strategy/view? Don't think of it as "freeloaders" vs "few who pull all the weight", and don't think you should be paying to "keep things afloat". Instead, keep whatever tool is best for you at the moment (even if proprietary) but don't stop looking/fomenting the development of a viable free alternative. If you find any project attempting to build an alternative for the commercial ones, follow up with (a) small financial contributions, (b) periodic best-effort attempts/evaluations of the tool as the alternative and (c) feedback on what is missing for it to become your main alternative. Unlike businesses, free software projects don't need to have a short-term ROI and they don't need to give up if the venture is not profitable. But your small contributions will at least show as a signal that the developers have a potential audience, and your feedback can also provide them with guidance/help them iterate faster on what is relevant. Aside from marketing materials and mission statements, companies rarely care about their customers and they will not hold you in high regard just because you are giving them money. If they find themselves in a position where they can make more profit by screwing you over, they will. Conversely, if the free alternative does become a hit, you and everyone else gets to benefit. If it doesn't, it can be picked up later by other people. And even if it fails completely, you didn't lose much. It's the type of strategy that gives you very little downside, a huge upside and also gives you bragging rights and the feeling of a righteous soul. :)