3 ms·

Carmack is in a perfect position to provide another boon to the free software world: a license that doesn't allow unlimited redistribution by every recipient.

Carmack is in a perfect position to provide another boon to the free software world: a license that doesn't allow unlimited redistribution by every recipient. I know this isn't "free software" per Stallman's definition (precludes freedom 2), so don't all rush to flame me at once here. I believe, however, that the GPL's requirement that all software can be resold and redistributed by any recipient has been a big blight on the image of open-source software and has caused companies to actually tighten up lest their software and work become entirely unprofitable. Someone needs to write a license that can be easily reused which a) releases all source code and requires the release of derivative versions, b) allows derivative works by users who own a license (perhaps up to a certain commercial limit) and allows them to share their changes with other licensed users, and c) restricts distribution of the code or any of its derivatives to persons whom the recipient in good faith believes to have a valid license to the software. Unfortunately the GPL has ingrained in people that releasing source is the same as negating your whole investment. I don't believe things have to be this way. I believe that every software owner deserves a copy of the source, but I don't believe that every software owner has the right to redistribute that program practically without limitation as the GPL allows. If we have someone to lead the way in profitable source releases, I believe many companies will follow and at least part of the free software vision would be fulfilled: source code would come distributed with every program. Companies like id who resell their engine techs to other commercial developer studios would still be able to do so due to the commercial limitations in such a license and the requirements to own a valid license for id's particular piece of software and the code wouldn't have to wait five years to see the world. Anyone with the money to pay for the license isn't going to infringe because they know the court costs would be futile and cost 3x+ as much as just buying a license straight out. The open-source contributions could be incorporated into the commercial editions immediately (and hopefully vice-versa). I really don't think id et al have much to lose from this approach, so I hope someone would do it. id is not beholden to a large corporate publisher and Carmack clearly has the interest and understands the benefit behind a source release. Carmack has the vision to do something like this, imo, and I really hope he does.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
Short answer: no, FOSS couldn't possibly work without the ability to modify and redistribute, and licenses that attempt to suggest otherwise get rightfully rejected before they can proliferate. Source code has little value without the right to make and distribute modified versions. Attempts to create open ecosystems around proprietary products typically turn out badly, with very few exceptions. Also, since you brought up engines like id's, I'd point out that copyleft licenses like the GPL make it trivial to profit even if releasing the engine on day 1, given that the numerous makers of games based on those engines don't want to ship their entire game under the GPL.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  >Short answer: no, FOSS couldn't possibly work without the ability to modify and redistribute, and licenses that attempt to suggest otherwise get rightfully rejected before they can proliferate. The ability to modify and redistribute continues to exist; the limitation should be equivalent to something like, "You are not allowed to use this unless you have a license", similar to the "You are not allowed to use this unless you agree to the licensing agreement" that many Linux distributions use to preface installation of the Oracle JRE. You are free to disagree but I do not see any necessity for the provisions of the GPL that allow unlimited redistribution as long as source is included. It's not that I don't want people to use the GPL or that I don't find it worthwhile or noble to release software as GPL, it's just that I don't feel freedom 2, "the freedom to help your neighbor [whether they have contributed or paid anything or not]", is an essential component for all software. I do believe that source should be included with all software, so I think there is a good middle ground somewhere out there and I want someone to seize it. I want the image to be perpetuated that giving your users source code isn't the same thing as bankrupting your company and/or resigning yourself to profit only on supplementary "support services". I don't like the image that has been perpetuated by things like the GPL that a source release == complete unsellability.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Ignore freedom 2 for a minute, and consider freedom 3: Free Software (and Open Source Software) requires the ability to distribute modified versions. That freedom can't meaningfully exist without also allowing the ability to distribute unmodified versions (since you could just make a trivial modification and redistribute). So, freedom 3 necessarily implies freedom 2, and you can't have FOSS without freedom 3. Take a look at this entry in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal What you've suggested amounts to the "shared source" model of "look but don't touch". You also entirely ignored my point that the GPL still makes it possible for companies like id to easily profit from sales of their engines, without having to add further restrictions. Also, the JRE became Free Software under the GPL several years ago. :)

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Short answer: no, FOSS couldn't possibly work without the ability to modify and redistribute, and licenses that attempt to suggest otherwise get rightfully rejected before they can proliferate. Source code has little value without the right to make and distribute modified versions. Attempts to create open ecosystems around proprietary products typically turn out badly, with very few exceptions. Also, since you brought up engines like id's, I'd point out that copyleft licenses like the GPL make it trivial to profit even if releasing the engine on day 1, given that the numerous makers of games based on those engines don't want to ship their entire game under the GPL.

cookiecaper 15y ago
>Short answer: no, FOSS couldn't possibly work without the ability to modify and redistribute, and licenses that attempt to suggest otherwise get rightfully rejected before they can proliferate. The ability to modify and redistribute continues to exist; the limitation should be equivalent to something like, "You are not allowed to use this unless you have a license", similar to the "You are not allowed to use this unless you agree to the licensing agreement" that many Linux distributions use to preface installation of the Oracle JRE. You are free to disagree but I do not see any necessity for the provisions of the GPL that allow unlimited redistribution as long as source is included. It's not that I don't want people to use the GPL or that I don't find it worthwhile or noble to release software as GPL, it's just that I don't feel freedom 2, "the freedom to help your neighbor [whether they have contributed or paid anything or not]", is an essential component for all software. I do believe that source should be included with all software, so I think there is a good middle ground somewhere out there and I want someone to seize it. I want the image to be perpetuated that giving your users source code isn't the same thing as bankrupting your company and/or resigning yourself to profit only on supplementary "support services". I don't like the image that has been perpetuated by things like the GPL that a source release == complete unsellability.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Ignore freedom 2 for a minute, and consider freedom 3: Free Software (and Open Source Software) requires the ability to distribute modified versions. That freedom can't meaningfully exist without also allowing the ability to distribute unmodified versions (since you could just make a trivial modification and redistribute). So, freedom 3 necessarily implies freedom 2, and you can't have FOSS without freedom 3. Take a look at this entry in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal What you've suggested amounts to the "shared source" model of "look but don't touch". You also entirely ignored my point that the GPL still makes it possible for companies like id to easily profit from sales of their engines, without having to add further restrictions. Also, the JRE became Free Software under the GPL several years ago. :)