8 ms·

How is releasing source code under a commercial license considered "opening it up"? All this stuff was already available to modders/third-party devs through the

How is releasing source code under a commercial license considered "opening it up"? All this stuff was already available to modders/third-party devs through the SDK program. The only news here is that they made it available on Github.

DigitalSea 13y ago
I am not a game developer, nor do I have access to the SDK program you speak of... It's considered opening it up because it means developers like myself who don't developer for these games can get a glimpse of what is going on under the hood without needing to register for any developer program. Opening it up as in making it easier for the general public on Github to view. No need for the cynicism.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  The sdk is available through steam if you have that installed. It also used to be available on their website and mirrored around the internet on sites like gamespy. There was never any need to register for a developer program or anything like that. It was always set up for teenagers to grab it and play around. The only thing that has changed is it now has a github presence.
- emhart 13y ago
  Yeah, I thought "for the public to view" was very clear. I think you only wound up downvoted out of some OSS reactionism that skimmed by what you were actually saying.
hhm 13y ago
Is this really a commercial license? Check the license text: "You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified Valve game running on the Half-Life engine. You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code form, but only for free." Sure, you can't make commercial products out of it, but you are allowed to re-distribute any modifications for free. This can be used by people who want to make free, open source games, for example.
- nailer 13y ago
  http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling..."
  - hhm 13y ago
    Yes, but if a license isn't open source as defined by OSD, it doesn't mean that it is automatically commercial. My claim is just that the additional restrictions imposed by Valve push the license into some gray area, between OS and commercial.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      "Commercial" is commonly used to mean "not Open Source" or "not Free Software", and in that usage not being Open Source does mean that it is "commercial". Properly speaking, "commercial" is an orthogonal concern to "Open Source" -- if software is sold by a merchant under a license, that license is commercial, whether or not the license is also an Open Source license. You seem to want to create a new use of "commercial" where it on a continuum with "Open Source" but not merely the negation of "Open Source", such that there would be "Commercial" and then some poorly specified "gray area" and then "Open Source". I'm not sure that this is either a particularly good use of the term "commercial", nor a particularly useful concept regardless of the terminology. Non-Open Source or non-Free licenses always permit you to do something with the software (that's why they are "licenses").
      - hhm 13y ago
        Your definition (in the first line) would imply that closed-source freeware is commercial, I don't agree with that. I do agree that commercial is orthogonal to open source. So my original point about the license not being properly commercial stands. I do agree with you that it is not really proper to claim that there is a spectrum between commercial and open source.
        13y ago

DigitalSea 13y ago

I am not a game developer, nor do I have access to the SDK program you speak of... It's considered opening it up because it means developers like myself who don't developer for these games can get a glimpse of what is going on under the hood without needing to register for any developer program. Opening it up as in making it easier for the general public on Github to view. No need for the cynicism.

stonemetal 13y ago
The sdk is available through steam if you have that installed. It also used to be available on their website and mirrored around the internet on sites like gamespy. There was never any need to register for a developer program or anything like that. It was always set up for teenagers to grab it and play around. The only thing that has changed is it now has a github presence.
emhart 13y ago
Yeah, I thought "for the public to view" was very clear. I think you only wound up downvoted out of some OSS reactionism that skimmed by what you were actually saying.

hhm 13y ago

Is this really a commercial license? Check the license text: "You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified Valve game running on the Half-Life engine. You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code form, but only for free." Sure, you can't make commercial products out of it, but you are allowed to re-distribute any modifications for free. This can be used by people who want to make free, open source games, for example.

nailer 13y ago
http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling..."
- hhm 13y ago
  Yes, but if a license isn't open source as defined by OSD, it doesn't mean that it is automatically commercial. My claim is just that the additional restrictions imposed by Valve push the license into some gray area, between OS and commercial.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    "Commercial" is commonly used to mean "not Open Source" or "not Free Software", and in that usage not being Open Source does mean that it is "commercial". Properly speaking, "commercial" is an orthogonal concern to "Open Source" -- if software is sold by a merchant under a license, that license is commercial, whether or not the license is also an Open Source license. You seem to want to create a new use of "commercial" where it on a continuum with "Open Source" but not merely the negation of "Open Source", such that there would be "Commercial" and then some poorly specified "gray area" and then "Open Source". I'm not sure that this is either a particularly good use of the term "commercial", nor a particularly useful concept regardless of the terminology. Non-Open Source or non-Free licenses always permit you to do something with the software (that's why they are "licenses").
    - hhm 13y ago
      Your definition (in the first line) would imply that closed-source freeware is commercial, I don't agree with that. I do agree that commercial is orthogonal to open source. So my original point about the license not being properly commercial stands. I do agree with you that it is not really proper to claim that there is a spectrum between commercial and open source.
      - 13y ago