7 ms·

The Unreal Engine is free neither as beer, or freedom. Its free as in a mob protection money is given freely, with a lot of strings attached. Overall a very s

The Unreal Engine is free neither as beer, or freedom. Its free as in a mob protection money is given freely, with a lot of strings attached. Overall a very smart strategy. Free Software Walled Gardens I highly believe will start to become a common thing in the software industry. As you get most the benefits of Free Software, without the normally feared industry risks.

tootie 12y ago
It's free as in a bank loan with no time frame for repayment.
- vamur 12y ago
  It's a positive development, not sure the negative comments. 5% is chump change if a game is successfull. The engine is also open source (so no hidden malware), runs on Linux and WebGL.
  - hollerith 12y ago
    >The engine is also open source I think you mean the source code is available (i.e., anyone can download it), which is different from its coming with an open-source license, which is what most people mean by "open source".
    - pantalaimon 12y ago
      No, what you mean is Free Software
      - vetinari 12y ago
        No, it's not Open Source either: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
        nulltype 12y ago
        I think microsoft calls this "Shared Source"
        SXX 12y ago
        Actually no. Microsoft branded several licenses that way, but some of them are OSI-approved and FSF-approved (while not compatible with GPL).
        nulltype 12y ago
        Then I guess we need a new name. The engine is "readable source"
  - benologist 12y ago
    At $3000/product/quarter it will also be completely free for many indie game and app developers while they try and build something people want.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      Many game developers will be smiling if they have to write that quarterly check.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
It's free enough for most hobbyist game developers, many of whom will never make enough (or anything at all, really) from their games to matter. You want ideological purity? Go write your own system.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  "Ideological purity" is irrelevant. The point here is that people are abusing terminology to create ambiguity. As we are talking about software, the term "free" has specific connotations that differ from everyday language. UE4 is a source-available, gratis game engine. This is fine. It is not open source, nor is it free or libre.
  - zzalpha 12y ago
    Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to: - not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations - given or available without charge So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes. Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No. Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice? Yes.
    - nightski 12y ago
      Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.
      - adventured 12y ago
        It's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines. You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word. People whining about this are being ridiculous.
venomsnake 12y ago
If you use it for non commercial purposes it is free enough.
cwyers 12y ago
It's free as in beer, with the fine print putting a limit on the free beer you get before you're either cut off or have to start buying your own beer. It's like going to a wedding reception and claiming that the open bar is a lie because they stop serving at midnight.
GhotiFish 12y ago
To be honest here. The strings that are attached are strings for people who want to sell... Many open source projects do something like this, a dual license where the source code for the project is GPL, but the creator is willing to license it for something as non-gpl to people unwilling to release their source code. This requirement set by unreal is very very analogous. They just have some shifted priorities, however for me this project now meets the standard of what I would consider "ethical". Could it be better? Sure why not? It could be GPL dual license, people who want to benefit from open source but release closed source I think should have to pay, that would be better. However, this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives. This is fantastic. That's my estimation of the situation anyway, you perhaps do not see it like this. Could you go further into your position?
- SXX 12y ago
  >this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives. No it's can't be because UE4 is proprietary: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
  - GhotiFish 12y ago
    ?? ... so? What provision on that page would I violate if I made an FLOSS project based on UE4?
    - psquid 12y ago
      #2, "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Unreal's license for obtaining the source does not permit you to redistribute in source form, so you can't comply with their license and still fulfil that point. While it's certainly trivial now for most anyone to obtain that source independently, you can't include that source in your own project while still distributing your own project under any license that the OSD would label as open source.
      - SXX 12y ago
ctdonath 12y ago
It's "free" as in "fair share". You'd spend decades rebuilding something that complex - and you're welcome to do it yourself if you won't give fair reimbursement to those who did and let you use their work with no entry cost.
Shorel 12y ago
I have always believed that the base operating system, and general libraries should be Libre, but individual applications should not need to be restricted this way. This brings the best of both worlds. Freedom in the foundations, and an incentive to have real innovation in end user apps. But patents and copyrights should expire after ten years.

tootie 12y ago

It's free as in a bank loan with no time frame for repayment.

vamur 12y ago
It's a positive development, not sure the negative comments. 5% is chump change if a game is successfull. The engine is also open source (so no hidden malware), runs on Linux and WebGL.
- hollerith 12y ago
  >The engine is also open source I think you mean the source code is available (i.e., anyone can download it), which is different from its coming with an open-source license, which is what most people mean by "open source".
  - pantalaimon 12y ago
    No, what you mean is Free Software
    - vetinari 12y ago
      No, it's not Open Source either: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
      - nulltype 12y ago
        I think microsoft calls this "Shared Source"
        SXX 12y ago
        Actually no. Microsoft branded several licenses that way, but some of them are OSI-approved and FSF-approved (while not compatible with GPL).
        nulltype 12y ago
        Then I guess we need a new name. The engine is "readable source"
- benologist 12y ago
  At $3000/product/quarter it will also be completely free for many indie game and app developers while they try and build something people want.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Many game developers will be smiling if they have to write that quarterly check.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

It's free enough for most hobbyist game developers, many of whom will never make enough (or anything at all, really) from their games to matter. You want ideological purity? Go write your own system.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
"Ideological purity" is irrelevant. The point here is that people are abusing terminology to create ambiguity. As we are talking about software, the term "free" has specific connotations that differ from everyday language. UE4 is a source-available, gratis game engine. This is fine. It is not open source, nor is it free or libre.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to: - not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations - given or available without charge So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes. Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No. Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice? Yes.
  - nightski 12y ago
    Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.
    - adventured 12y ago
      It's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines. You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word. People whining about this are being ridiculous.

venomsnake 12y ago

If you use it for non commercial purposes it is free enough.

cwyers 12y ago

It's free as in beer, with the fine print putting a limit on the free beer you get before you're either cut off or have to start buying your own beer. It's like going to a wedding reception and claiming that the open bar is a lie because they stop serving at midnight.

GhotiFish 12y ago

To be honest here. The strings that are attached are strings for people who want to sell... Many open source projects do something like this, a dual license where the source code for the project is GPL, but the creator is willing to license it for something as non-gpl to people unwilling to release their source code. This requirement set by unreal is very very analogous. They just have some shifted priorities, however for me this project now meets the standard of what I would consider "ethical". Could it be better? Sure why not? It could be GPL dual license, people who want to benefit from open source but release closed source I think should have to pay, that would be better. However, this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives. This is fantastic. That's my estimation of the situation anyway, you perhaps do not see it like this. Could you go further into your position?

SXX 12y ago
>this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives. No it's can't be because UE4 is proprietary: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  ?? ... so? What provision on that page would I violate if I made an FLOSS project based on UE4?
  - psquid 12y ago
    #2, "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Unreal's license for obtaining the source does not permit you to redistribute in source form, so you can't comply with their license and still fulfil that point. While it's certainly trivial now for most anyone to obtain that source independently, you can't include that source in your own project while still distributing your own project under any license that the OSD would label as open source.
    - SXX 12y ago

ctdonath 12y ago

It's "free" as in "fair share". You'd spend decades rebuilding something that complex - and you're welcome to do it yourself if you won't give fair reimbursement to those who did and let you use their work with no entry cost.

Shorel 12y ago

I have always believed that the base operating system, and general libraries should be Libre, but individual applications should not need to be restricted this way. This brings the best of both worlds. Freedom in the foundations, and an incentive to have real innovation in end user apps. But patents and copyrights should expire after ten years.