5 ms·

While I appreciate the sentiment that leads one to say "then don't donate," and especially for a codebase you've worked on for a while, simply "open sourcing it

While I appreciate the sentiment that leads one to say "then don't donate," and especially for a codebase you've worked on for a while, simply "open sourcing it" might not be as straightforward as all that. Yet still, it leaves a strange taste in my mouth here in 2015 when you run across such an ambitious and successful project that asks the community for help but then prints this in their license: "The source code, design, and structure of the Software are trade secrets." I understand the desire to generate income from it at some point, but then why are you asking people to blindly donate $80K to help you build a potential business model? All that said, it's a fantastic program, and I wish the author much success in the future. A marriage of this and KSP would be like some sort of dream scenario :)

vectorjohn 11y ago
What, you mean like selling a piece of software? Why is this any different than any other game that is sold, e.g. as an early access. They sure aren't open sourcing most games.
- secstate 11y ago
  Nope, but the business model of most games is nothing like this. It's more like movies, where advance sale of licenses gets you the money to hire the team and then the clock starts and if you don't hit the milestones, the shit hits the fan and before you know it, you've turned into Electronic Arts ;) But seriously, this isn't selling software. Strangely, if this were like Kerbal Space Program, and the dev were offering to SELL it for $40, $50, $60 with the promise that that price includes upgrades up to a certain version (1.0 + minor releases in the cycle?) I'd probably do that. I am not, however, going to donate money to a project that literally states in the license that their software is a trade secret. What is this, 1980?
  - themartorana 11y ago
    I'm confused how software is so different from any other type of invention. If you've ever backed a single Kickstarter project you're being hypocritical. I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. It's how closed source should work. It feels like you're arguing semantics - it says "trade secret" so you're put off. If it didn't say anything and was just closed source... would you care as much? Nothing in this world requires you to like or participate in anything else - you don't have to donate or participate. But the level of entitlement is off the charts.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      > I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. These are not the only two options. If I understood it right, the programmer is asking for money to develop something that will be available for download for free, but whose source code would be secret. As a programmer myself (who writes free-as-in-speech software), the source code is the most relevant artifact and the only one that interests me. I would not sponsor the development of a project where the only deliverable is an opaque binary executable where other development models are possible.
      - sqeaky 11y ago
        I agree completely. This space engine software runs on 0 of my computers, with source and the game dev experience I have I might change that. With the binaries provided I cannot change that. This software may as well from a naive self concerned viewpoint.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 11y ago
For crying out loud, you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing. Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available? So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? WTF.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  > you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing No. I can't. It does not support my computing platform. Neither of them, by the way. > Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available? There is no reason why he should not solicit donations and it is, I agree, an Amazing Thing. It is, however, only partially available. > So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? What would change if the source code were licensed under GPL? The download is free-as-in-beer, so others making if available for download would change nothing. Others could help adding features and helping development at a faster pace. If someone else took over the burden to port it to another platform (and, say, make me happy), the project would be able to attract more funding. The only possible downside is if a fork gained more traction than the root project and started attracting more funding. Still, any improvements would flow upstream back to his project thanks to the wonders of the GPL. I would understand resistance were he charging for the download. In that case, the GPL wouldn't help at all. Also, he can copyright any art that's part of the final product (much like Red Hat copyrights their red hats) and that would prevent any third party from building a final product exactly like his. If the art added sufficient value (unlike all those little red hats) there would be no fork like CentOS. Think it through. He's actually hurting himself by keeping it closed.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    It's hardly the authors responsibility to produce a version for you preferred computing platforms. You can always run Wine or somesuch. Perhaps he wants to license his technology to a commercial publisher, and estimates that keeping the codebase private is a safer commercial decision than putting it out under the GPL or trying to patent it.

vectorjohn 11y ago

What, you mean like selling a piece of software? Why is this any different than any other game that is sold, e.g. as an early access. They sure aren't open sourcing most games.

secstate 11y ago
Nope, but the business model of most games is nothing like this. It's more like movies, where advance sale of licenses gets you the money to hire the team and then the clock starts and if you don't hit the milestones, the shit hits the fan and before you know it, you've turned into Electronic Arts ;) But seriously, this isn't selling software. Strangely, if this were like Kerbal Space Program, and the dev were offering to SELL it for $40, $50, $60 with the promise that that price includes upgrades up to a certain version (1.0 + minor releases in the cycle?) I'd probably do that. I am not, however, going to donate money to a project that literally states in the license that their software is a trade secret. What is this, 1980?
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm confused how software is so different from any other type of invention. If you've ever backed a single Kickstarter project you're being hypocritical. I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. It's how closed source should work. It feels like you're arguing semantics - it says "trade secret" so you're put off. If it didn't say anything and was just closed source... would you care as much? Nothing in this world requires you to like or participate in anything else - you don't have to donate or participate. But the level of entitlement is off the charts.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    > I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. These are not the only two options. If I understood it right, the programmer is asking for money to develop something that will be available for download for free, but whose source code would be secret. As a programmer myself (who writes free-as-in-speech software), the source code is the most relevant artifact and the only one that interests me. I would not sponsor the development of a project where the only deliverable is an opaque binary executable where other development models are possible.
    - sqeaky 11y ago
      I agree completely. This space engine software runs on 0 of my computers, with source and the game dev experience I have I might change that. With the binaries provided I cannot change that. This software may as well from a naive self concerned viewpoint.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 11y ago

For crying out loud, you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing. Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available? So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? WTF.

rbanffy 11y ago
> you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing No. I can't. It does not support my computing platform. Neither of them, by the way. > Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available? There is no reason why he should not solicit donations and it is, I agree, an Amazing Thing. It is, however, only partially available. > So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? What would change if the source code were licensed under GPL? The download is free-as-in-beer, so others making if available for download would change nothing. Others could help adding features and helping development at a faster pace. If someone else took over the burden to port it to another platform (and, say, make me happy), the project would be able to attract more funding. The only possible downside is if a fork gained more traction than the root project and started attracting more funding. Still, any improvements would flow upstream back to his project thanks to the wonders of the GPL. I would understand resistance were he charging for the download. In that case, the GPL wouldn't help at all. Also, he can copyright any art that's part of the final product (much like Red Hat copyrights their red hats) and that would prevent any third party from building a final product exactly like his. If the art added sufficient value (unlike all those little red hats) there would be no fork like CentOS. Think it through. He's actually hurting himself by keeping it closed.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  It's hardly the authors responsibility to produce a version for you preferred computing platforms. You can always run Wine or somesuch. Perhaps he wants to license his technology to a commercial publisher, and estimates that keeping the codebase private is a safer commercial decision than putting it out under the GPL or trying to patent it.