3 ms·
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)
by 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 agoI 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.