4 ms·

The unoffical reason is Xamarin wants too much money.

by WallWextra 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago
Or the Unity guys want to pay too little money.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  You haven't seen Xamarin licensing prices...
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    No, but they are surely cheaper than a lot of comercial software I have to deal with in the enterprise space. Plus let's not forget Unity was just another 3D engine before they got Mono integrated. Whereas Mono was already being used in multiple areas. Anyway, this is playing conspiracy theory until someone issues an official statement.
_random_ 12y ago
I think it is very fair if Unity will be in the same boat as e.g. MonoGame.
frik 12y ago
Mono is open source and free software. Because of the "single static binary" policy (no dynamic linking) of app stores you have to obtain a proprietary license from Xamarin. • The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (GPL). • The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). • The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (LGPL 2.0). • The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license. and: When do I need to obtain a license from Xamarin to the Mono Runtime? We only require licensing for uses of Mono and Moonlight on embedded systems, or systems where you are unable to fulfill the obligations of the GNU LGPL. source: http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/
- MrDom 12y ago
  It's not just mono they need, it's the IDE. The default IDE that comes with Unity is MonoDevelop. If they upgraded the runtime, they'd have to pay for Xamarin's IDE. I wonder if embedding the java runtime would have been cheaper in the long run.
  - jstedfast 12y ago
    Our IDE is free for anyone to use, whether you are using our iOS, Android or Mac products or not. It's also open source (except for the addins that work with our iOS, Android and Mac products). There are a lot of Unity customers on our forums using Xamarin Studio already.
- Alphasite_ 12y ago
  How would that work with the App store now, since you can dynamically link to frameworks?
- gillianseed 12y ago
  >We only require licensing for uses of Mono and Moonlight on embedded systems, or systems where you are unable to fulfill the obligations of the GNU LGPL. In other words, you have to pay a license fee for shipping the Mono runtime in a proprietary game, which is what Unity does. So Unity has negotiated a license deal with Xamarin for the Mono runtime version they use, and if they want to use a newer version they will have to pay more, which they aren't doing. Instead Unity has developed il2cpp which means that they no longer have to ship the mono runtime with each game and therefore no longer have to pay the license fee for shipping mono. Atleast that's what I've gathered.
  - the_why_of_y 12y ago
    You can bundle LGPL libraries with proprietary applications quite easily; it just has to be possible for the user to replace it, which is rarely a problem because the usual situation is that your proprietary code sits "above" the LGPL library. But reportedly Apple does not allow LGPL in its app store for some reason.

The unoffical reason is Xamarin wants too much money.

pjmlp 12y ago

Or the Unity guys want to pay too little money.

Mikeb85 12y ago
You haven't seen Xamarin licensing prices...
- pjmlp 12y ago
  No, but they are surely cheaper than a lot of comercial software I have to deal with in the enterprise space. Plus let's not forget Unity was just another 3D engine before they got Mono integrated. Whereas Mono was already being used in multiple areas. Anyway, this is playing conspiracy theory until someone issues an official statement.

_random_ 12y ago

I think it is very fair if Unity will be in the same boat as e.g. MonoGame.

frik 12y ago

Mono is open source and free software. Because of the "single static binary" policy (no dynamic linking) of app stores you have to obtain a proprietary license from Xamarin. • The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (GPL). • The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). • The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (LGPL 2.0). • The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license. and: When do I need to obtain a license from Xamarin to the Mono Runtime? We only require licensing for uses of Mono and Moonlight on embedded systems, or systems where you are unable to fulfill the obligations of the GNU LGPL. source: http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/

MrDom 12y ago
It's not just mono they need, it's the IDE. The default IDE that comes with Unity is MonoDevelop. If they upgraded the runtime, they'd have to pay for Xamarin's IDE. I wonder if embedding the java runtime would have been cheaper in the long run.
- jstedfast 12y ago
  Our IDE is free for anyone to use, whether you are using our iOS, Android or Mac products or not. It's also open source (except for the addins that work with our iOS, Android and Mac products). There are a lot of Unity customers on our forums using Xamarin Studio already.
Alphasite_ 12y ago
How would that work with the App store now, since you can dynamically link to frameworks?
gillianseed 12y ago
>We only require licensing for uses of Mono and Moonlight on embedded systems, or systems where you are unable to fulfill the obligations of the GNU LGPL. In other words, you have to pay a license fee for shipping the Mono runtime in a proprietary game, which is what Unity does. So Unity has negotiated a license deal with Xamarin for the Mono runtime version they use, and if they want to use a newer version they will have to pay more, which they aren't doing. Instead Unity has developed il2cpp which means that they no longer have to ship the mono runtime with each game and therefore no longer have to pay the license fee for shipping mono. Atleast that's what I've gathered.
- the_why_of_y 12y ago
  You can bundle LGPL libraries with proprietary applications quite easily; it just has to be possible for the user to replace it, which is rarely a problem because the usual situation is that your proprietary code sits "above" the LGPL library. But reportedly Apple does not allow LGPL in its app store for some reason.