3 ms·
Why do I feel like those useful changes in the forks will never make it upstream? It's not GPL I suppose? I guess I just don't really understand how people can
by globular-toast 3y ago
Why do I feel like those useful changes in the forks will never make it upstream? It's not GPL I suppose? I guess I just don't really understand how people can be ok with companies like EA freeloading their work, which they almost certainly will if they can.
- TheRoque 3y agoIs GPL practical for a game engine ? Doesn't it mean that all code produced with this engine would be also open source ? Seems pretty much like a no-go, and nobody would use the engine. Please correct me if I didn't understand it right.
- Rapzid 3y agoI don't think you'd ever be able to do a console port with a GPL engine. The SDKs are all proprietary and behind NDAs.
- slikrick 3y agocorrect. GPL zealots completely ignore usecases that are incompatible though
- nunodonato 3y agoGodot is not GPL, it's MIT
- globular-toast 3y agoThe value of a game is mostly in its artwork, story, gameplay etc., not the code.
- slikrick 3y agoyou would need to release those assets for the project to be buildable under the GPL. you can't just not provide build assets
- globular-toast 3y agoI didn't say build assets. The artwork etc are runtime assets. Do you know anything about building software? Do you even understand the GPL?
- yodon 3y agoMost open source projects have realized that GPL has unfortunate parallels with a foot gun. Forcing people to contribute sounds like a great idea, until nobody wants to be forced and everybody prefers the other project that doesn't force them, and then they all go ahead and contribute to that other project anyway because they want to, not because they were forced to (in large part because the practical benefits of getting your changes into the upstream vastly outstrip any theoretical "my code is better" fantasies). Faster adoption of non-GPL projects leads to faster growth of those projects in the form of more contributions as well. Other than a group of mostly quite old GPL projects the momentum and activity and success is clearly with more MIT-like licenses than GPL-like licenses, again in large part because the benefits to you of getting your patches into the upstream proves to be a powerful motivator that is not also a demotivator the way the threat of being forced to contribute is. Yes, one can point out a newish successful GPL project here or there and a couple of pro-GPL ecosystems but the vast majority of recently successful project starters are using MIT-ish licenses for good reasons.
- globular-toast 3y agoWhat footguns? What good reasons? You've failed to explain anything except that GPL is less fashionable. Let's be honest here, MIT-like pleases the almighty corporations and it is they that have the very good reasons, not the bootlickers.
- slikrick 3y agoyou do realize the GPL is completely incompatible with games right? if a developer sells a game they must then provide the code to build the game, then the person can distribute that code to everyone else, bypassing the need to pay for a game. It literally makes the need for cracking unnecessary, which I agree with, but I'm not going to pretend like any game company is going to release their source code in the year 2023... intentionally
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- slikrick 3y agoGPL doesn't require upstream to take in features from PRs/Forks, that's a complete misunderstanding of the license and fairly laughable