8 ms·

1. Microsoft 2. Not open source

by swang 13y ago

ks 13y ago
It is open sourced under Microsoft Public License: https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.
- fhd2 13y ago
  > but not compatible with the GNU GPL. That doesn't mean much, the GPL (v3) is incompatible with itself (v2). Not a GPL hater, just pointing out that it's not a big deal for licenses to be incompatible with the GPL.
- swang 13y ago
  Yes you're right about that, although this is only mentioned in the blog post, not the website. I'm also guessing this is open source the same way say Google open sources Android or Apple open sources Darwin.
mtinkerhess 13y ago
> Microsoft I don't see anything that says that this is a Microsoft product. It looks like a side project by a Microsoft employee. (full disclosure: I work at MS.) > Not open source Looks like the source code is available at https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js under the "Microsoft Public License" which has been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source license.
pixie_ 13y ago
This is just another technology connected with Microsoft that we should lament - right along with C#, Mono, Knockout, and TypeScript. Microsoft earned the ire of geeks everywhere in the 90s and it's a grudge many can't let go. Meanwhile you let Apple and Google steamroll you all by showing you what a real closed ecosystem monopoly really looks like. And you swallow it down because they do it all under the banner of 'open source.'
- danmaz74 13y ago
  "real closed ecosystem monopoly" you mean closed like Android, Chrome, Go, etc. etc.?
  - pixie_ 13y ago
    And you swallow it down because they do it all under the banner of 'open source.'
    - danmaz74 13y ago
      It is not under the banner of 'open source'. It IS open source (just ask Amazon, for example).
      - pixie_ 13y ago
        Uhg, the point is these are all multi-billion dollar businesses that use open source in one way or another. The problem is the open source (hacker news) community pretty much auto-ignores/dislikes anything connected with Microsoft. It's juvenile.
        danmaz74 13y ago
        It's not juvenile - as a matter of fact, I'm very wary of Microsoft's moves because I remember perfectly well just how greedy and shady Microsoft has been (especially during the nineties). In comparison, Google has been a much better citizen in the developers community. It too will succumb to the problems of gigantism and the pressure of "shareholder value" in the long run, but for now you really can't compare the credibility of Google's and Microsoft's open source programs.
        teamonkey 13y ago
        > especially during the nineties That was 20 years ago!

1. Microsoft 2. Not open source

by swang 13y ago

1. Microsoft 2. Not open source

ks 13y ago

It is open sourced under Microsoft Public License: https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.

fhd2 13y ago
> but not compatible with the GNU GPL. That doesn't mean much, the GPL (v3) is incompatible with itself (v2). Not a GPL hater, just pointing out that it's not a big deal for licenses to be incompatible with the GPL.
swang 13y ago
Yes you're right about that, although this is only mentioned in the blog post, not the website. I'm also guessing this is open source the same way say Google open sources Android or Apple open sources Darwin.

mtinkerhess 13y ago

> Microsoft I don't see anything that says that this is a Microsoft product. It looks like a side project by a Microsoft employee. (full disclosure: I work at MS.) > Not open source Looks like the source code is available at https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js https://github.com/BabylonJS/Babylon.js under the "Microsoft Public License" which has been certified by the Open Source Initiative as an open source license.

pixie_ 13y ago

This is just another technology connected with Microsoft that we should lament - right along with C#, Mono, Knockout, and TypeScript. Microsoft earned the ire of geeks everywhere in the 90s and it's a grudge many can't let go. Meanwhile you let Apple and Google steamroll you all by showing you what a real closed ecosystem monopoly really looks like. And you swallow it down because they do it all under the banner of 'open source.'

danmaz74 13y ago
"real closed ecosystem monopoly" you mean closed like Android, Chrome, Go, etc. etc.?
- pixie_ 13y ago
  And you swallow it down because they do it all under the banner of 'open source.'
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    It is not under the banner of 'open source'. It IS open source (just ask Amazon, for example).
    - pixie_ 13y ago
      Uhg, the point is these are all multi-billion dollar businesses that use open source in one way or another. The problem is the open source (hacker news) community pretty much auto-ignores/dislikes anything connected with Microsoft. It's juvenile.
      - danmaz74 13y ago
        It's not juvenile - as a matter of fact, I'm very wary of Microsoft's moves because I remember perfectly well just how greedy and shady Microsoft has been (especially during the nineties). In comparison, Google has been a much better citizen in the developers community. It too will succumb to the problems of gigantism and the pressure of "shareholder value" in the long run, but for now you really can't compare the credibility of Google's and Microsoft's open source programs.
        teamonkey 13y ago
        > especially during the nineties That was 20 years ago!