3 ms·

It's not the game code. It's just a mod development kit which has been available forever. This is just the latest version uploaded on GitHub. Not much of intere

by kaoD 13y ago

It's not the game code. It's just a mod development kit which has been available forever. This is just the latest version uploaded on GitHub. Not much of interest here. Do you want a truly open game company? Take a look at iD. THAT is Open. Many FLOSS games would be nothing without iD. John Carmack is the man. He releases actual engine code (not SDKs) and under GPL license! And that guy truly revolutionized 3d graphics (though iD's latest games are not very appealing to me) and instead of keeping the techniques as industrial secrets he releases his knowledge[1]. Seriously. Carmack is awesome. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail

Argorak 13y ago
This comparison is flawed. Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed. Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.
- kaoD 13y ago
  So Valve released Half-Life 1's source code? I'd love to give it a read. Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available. I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all. Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
  - Alphasite_ 13y ago
    And the source for Doom 3 BFG was released and that was not long after release at all, and it has components for the newer unreleased in it as well.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    It is true that GoldSrc is not released and Valve is (technology-wise) not an "open company" at all and I don't oppose that. Also, I wrote that the (ID) engines are closed while still sold for licensing - that has nothing to do with whether the old games are still available. The assets and levels are not free after all, so this just gives you the ability to buy those. I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company. A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
    - kaoD 13y ago
      Sorry, I misinterpreted the licensing bit. I guess you have a valid point. Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve. I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.
      - Argorak 13y ago
        I agree on that. It is just that in my opionion, strong wording with regards to software freedom should be reserved to those that practice it. In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community. It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply. Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html For ID, using assets is not regulated. Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.
james_ford 13y ago
All hail John Carmack. God.
- kaoD 13y ago
  I'm glad you were enlightened! :P

by kaoD 13y ago

Argorak 13y ago

This comparison is flawed. Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed. Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.

kaoD 13y ago
So Valve released Half-Life 1's source code? I'd love to give it a read. Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available. I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all. Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
- Alphasite_ 13y ago
  And the source for Doom 3 BFG was released and that was not long after release at all, and it has components for the newer unreleased in it as well.
- Argorak 13y ago
  It is true that GoldSrc is not released and Valve is (technology-wise) not an "open company" at all and I don't oppose that. Also, I wrote that the (ID) engines are closed while still sold for licensing - that has nothing to do with whether the old games are still available. The assets and levels are not free after all, so this just gives you the ability to buy those. I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company. A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    Sorry, I misinterpreted the licensing bit. I guess you have a valid point. Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve. I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      I agree on that. It is just that in my opionion, strong wording with regards to software freedom should be reserved to those that practice it. In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community. It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply. Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html For ID, using assets is not regulated. Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.

james_ford 13y ago

All hail John Carmack. God.

kaoD 13y ago
I'm glad you were enlightened! :P