5 ms·

This allows aspiring game developers to learn and build their own games from the code. All the repositories are GPL'd, so I'm assuming they meant build in a pu

by stephth 15y ago

This allows aspiring game developers to learn and build their own games from the code. All the repositories are GPL'd, so I'm assuming they meant build in a purely educational setting. It's a nice move, but why not go all the way and let developers leverage your code in their proprietary code? Insurgent Games only open sourced once they gave up, so they clearly know that open sourcing all your code is not a good idea when you're selling games.

rflrob 15y ago
> Insurgent Games only open sourced once they gave up, so they clearly know that open sourcing all your code is not a good idea when you're selling games. To be a bit pedantic, all you can really say is that they didn't know whether open sourcing your code is a good idea when you're selling games. I could imagine myself being convinced that having open sourced a game makes you no more or less likely to lose market share to copycats than keeping it closed. I don't know that anyone's tried it, nor that there's a particularly good experiment one could do to test that.
stephth 15y ago
Does anyone believe being selective about what you open source is a bad idea? If so could you share your perspective? (I'm asking as I'm guessing that may be why I got voted down)
- nzmsv 15y ago
  I think the answer, as usual, is "it depends". It can be bad when the open-source portion relies heavily on the closed-source components to function properly. One example: when Linksys was required to release their Linux-based router firmware, the wireless driver stayed closed-source. This effectively forced the use of 2.4 kernels for years, until a suitable substitute was developed. This exact situation is happening with Android: building a functional version for real hardware requires a large number of closed-source components, and they are a pain.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
windsurfer 15y ago
One of the developers moved on to the EFF, so it makes sense to make their code GPL.
- daeken 15y ago
  How does that follow? The EFF doesn't promote the GPL, but rather open source software in general. I think you're mixing them up with the FSF.
  - windsurfer 15y ago
    Ah, I was under the impression that the EFF preferred the GPL, and primarily enforced the GPL. My mistake.
    - kpozin 15y ago
      That's the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
naner 15y ago
Perhaps they don't want others to hide their improvements and simply released the code to foster learning and collaboration. Id software uses GPL for their game engine releases as well. So I'm sure they both have their reasons.
midnight_city 15y ago
From Cryptose's README.md: License ------- This game is licensed under the GNU General Public License (see gpl.txt). As the copyright owner, I hereby give anyone permission to re-license my GPL code under a non-GPL license for the purpose of distributing it in the iOS App Store or the Android Market.
- sanxiyn 15y ago
  This is not what you think it is. This is necessary because GPL is incompatible with App Store. (It doesn't seem to be rigorously enforced, but search for "GNU Go App Store".)
  - rsynnott 15y ago
    Go was GPLv3, which is clearly incompatible with the App Store ToS. The situation with GPLv2 is considerably more ambiguous.
Avshalom 15y ago
Actually games are almost completely unaffected by open sourcing the code. The value in 99% of games is in the level design/art/music assets which can be kept proprietary. It even maintains the spirit of the Four Freedoms.
wtracy 15y ago
"All the repositories are GPL'd, so I'm assuming they meant build in a purely educational setting." Um, how about in a hobbyist setting? Only a small subset of the people who write games are going to make money doing so. Many of them know this and do it just because they enjoy it. (See: Almost any mod community.)

by stephth 15y ago

rflrob 15y ago

> Insurgent Games only open sourced once they gave up, so they clearly know that open sourcing all your code is not a good idea when you're selling games. To be a bit pedantic, all you can really say is that they didn't know whether open sourcing your code is a good idea when you're selling games. I could imagine myself being convinced that having open sourced a game makes you no more or less likely to lose market share to copycats than keeping it closed. I don't know that anyone's tried it, nor that there's a particularly good experiment one could do to test that.

stephth 15y ago

Does anyone believe being selective about what you open source is a bad idea? If so could you share your perspective? (I'm asking as I'm guessing that may be why I got voted down)

nzmsv 15y ago
I think the answer, as usual, is "it depends". It can be bad when the open-source portion relies heavily on the closed-source components to function properly. One example: when Linksys was required to release their Linux-based router firmware, the wireless driver stayed closed-source. This effectively forced the use of 2.4 kernels for years, until a suitable substitute was developed. This exact situation is happening with Android: building a functional version for real hardware requires a large number of closed-source components, and they are a pain.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

windsurfer 15y ago

One of the developers moved on to the EFF, so it makes sense to make their code GPL.

daeken 15y ago
How does that follow? The EFF doesn't promote the GPL, but rather open source software in general. I think you're mixing them up with the FSF.
- windsurfer 15y ago
  Ah, I was under the impression that the EFF preferred the GPL, and primarily enforced the GPL. My mistake.
  - kpozin 15y ago
    That's the Free Software Foundation (FSF).

naner 15y ago

Perhaps they don't want others to hide their improvements and simply released the code to foster learning and collaboration. Id software uses GPL for their game engine releases as well. So I'm sure they both have their reasons.

midnight_city 15y ago

From Cryptose's README.md: License ------- This game is licensed under the GNU General Public License (see gpl.txt). As the copyright owner, I hereby give anyone permission to re-license my GPL code under a non-GPL license for the purpose of distributing it in the iOS App Store or the Android Market.

sanxiyn 15y ago
This is not what you think it is. This is necessary because GPL is incompatible with App Store. (It doesn't seem to be rigorously enforced, but search for "GNU Go App Store".)
- rsynnott 15y ago
  Go was GPLv3, which is clearly incompatible with the App Store ToS. The situation with GPLv2 is considerably more ambiguous.

Avshalom 15y ago

Actually games are almost completely unaffected by open sourcing the code. The value in 99% of games is in the level design/art/music assets which can be kept proprietary. It even maintains the spirit of the Four Freedoms.

wtracy 15y ago

"All the repositories are GPL'd, so I'm assuming they meant build in a purely educational setting." Um, how about in a hobbyist setting? Only a small subset of the people who write games are going to make money doing so. Many of them know this and do it just because they enjoy it. (See: Almost any mod community.)