3 ms·

> As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd

> As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code. Poor you. The game industry _chooses_ not to go near GPL'd code because they want to sell proprietary software. Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place. Yes, the free software movement is supposed to be detrimental to the developers of proprietary software and has no incentive to cater to their needs. Do you think we want to make Windows or iOS a more attractive platform? Or to build components to be used to improve proprietary engines instead of helping free ones because hey, the proprietary devs may send a bugfix our way? No. MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason. I chose MIT to interoperate with other free software; if it wasn't for that I would have chosen the GPL or the LGPL. > hurting our entire industry I think the entire software industry is _helped_ if I drive it towards free software. I don't care how many billions the next Call of Duty game will make. I care if local developers in my country can get a consulting gig because the system my government uses is open source and so they have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major foreign company and get locked-in to it. > (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.) Weak argument. Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Firstly, I want to be clear that I responded specifically to the idea that "MIT license == somehow bad". Releasing code under GPL is not in any way a bad thing, and I'm not arguing against the GPL. People can do whatever they want, and there are a lot of solid reasons to prefer the GPL. My purpose here is to stick up for fellow gamedevs, because it's absurd to believe that we're not interested in contributing to open source just because we prefer the MIT license. I could name several gamedevs off the top of my head who have contributed in a big way to open source software. Interestingly, they all tend to use MIT licenses. Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point. The gamedev industry isn't like other industries. You can't spend a decade writing an engine. You therefore need talent in order to write a competitive non-toy engine. This means you must work in the game industry for a period of time to get that talent. You also need to be brought up steeped in the sort of culture that makes you mentally inclined to open source your years of hard work rather than keeping it closed and proprietary. That's why it's a mistake to villify the MIT license -- you're cutting off an entire generation of programmers from open source culture. Specifically, the generation of programmers who want to be game developers. The reason is because they are going to be working in the gamedev industry, and hence the MIT license is going to be their only option to participate in open source culture. Villifying them will drive them away, and future talent will write proprietary closed-source engines as a result rather than free and open source ones. In summary, villifying the MIT license is directly counterproductive to your philosophical goal of seeing less proprietary software.
- teamonkey 13y ago
  > You can't spend a decade writing an engine. In fact, proprietary engines that are less than a decade old and have exceeded their commercial usefulness are often open sourced. https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl
fastball 13y ago
Why are you conflating two different industries? If you are going to question the validity of his point, actually do that instead of throwing in a red herring. The software of your government is nowhere near the same as video games. In fact, I would say the video game industry is somewhat unique in the case of software dev, as it is not generally a "life improver". Video games are not tools that would improve the world if everyone had free access to them. In fact, most big games being proprietary (and not free) is probably a blessing for the productivity of the entire human race. I personally don't want most of my multiplayer games to be open source (you used the example of Call of Duty), because when the client is open source it is much easier to cheat (and build your own "cheat client")
stcredzero 13y ago
Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place. Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software. MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason. Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially... ...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major... ...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

Firstly, I want to be clear that I responded specifically to the idea that "MIT license == somehow bad". Releasing code under GPL is not in any way a bad thing, and I'm not arguing against the GPL. People can do whatever they want, and there are a lot of solid reasons to prefer the GPL. My purpose here is to stick up for fellow gamedevs, because it's absurd to believe that we're not interested in contributing to open source just because we prefer the MIT license. I could name several gamedevs off the top of my head who have contributed in a big way to open source software. Interestingly, they all tend to use MIT licenses. Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point. The gamedev industry isn't like other industries. You can't spend a decade writing an engine. You therefore need talent in order to write a competitive non-toy engine. This means you must work in the game industry for a period of time to get that talent. You also need to be brought up steeped in the sort of culture that makes you mentally inclined to open source your years of hard work rather than keeping it closed and proprietary. That's why it's a mistake to villify the MIT license -- you're cutting off an entire generation of programmers from open source culture. Specifically, the generation of programmers who want to be game developers. The reason is because they are going to be working in the gamedev industry, and hence the MIT license is going to be their only option to participate in open source culture. Villifying them will drive them away, and future talent will write proprietary closed-source engines as a result rather than free and open source ones. In summary, villifying the MIT license is directly counterproductive to your philosophical goal of seeing less proprietary software.

teamonkey 13y ago
> You can't spend a decade writing an engine. In fact, proprietary engines that are less than a decade old and have exceeded their commercial usefulness are often open sourced. https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl

fastball 13y ago

Why are you conflating two different industries? If you are going to question the validity of his point, actually do that instead of throwing in a red herring. The software of your government is nowhere near the same as video games. In fact, I would say the video game industry is somewhat unique in the case of software dev, as it is not generally a "life improver". Video games are not tools that would improve the world if everyone had free access to them. In fact, most big games being proprietary (and not free) is probably a blessing for the productivity of the entire human race. I personally don't want most of my multiplayer games to be open source (you used the example of Call of Duty), because when the client is open source it is much easier to cheat (and build your own "cheat client")

stcredzero 13y ago

Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place. Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software. MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason. Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially... ...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major... ...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.