One of the big winners of the Unity debacle is the free and open source Godot Engine, which has seen its funding soar to a much more impressive level as Unity basically gave them free advertising.

One of the big winners of the Unity debacle is the free and open source Godot Engine, which has seen its funding soar to a much more impressive level as Unity basically gave them free advertising.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish
    785·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, now I’m concerned this might happen with Unreal Engine, even though they’ve given no indication that it will. Once Godot works out the kinks with level and texture streaming, and has a landscape editor I will be going back to Godot.

          • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1310·
            1 year ago

            It is source available

            Yes, open source.

            Not Open Source

            You mean free/libre? Open source literally just means you can see the source.

            • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
              132·
              1 year ago

              Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use the source code,[1] design documents,[2] or content of the product. The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

              • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                And then later on…

                Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.

                Unreal Engine is technically open source, because it’s source code is made available to the general public. But it is licensed under a restrictive EULA instead of any of the normal licenses you’d expect for an open source project (MIT, Apache, GPL3, etc).

                This is definitely pedantic, but “open source” is a colloquial term, not a technical one. Most people mean FOSS when they say open source, but the terms aren’t exactly equivalent. The license that governs the code is really the only part that actually matters.

          • jimbo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1515·
            1 year ago

            When did the term “open source” start including specifics about licensing terms? My understanding from the past few decades was that “open source” meant the source was available for people to look at and compile.

            • WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              175·
              1 year ago

              Open source has always meant under a free license. Being able to fork and publish your own versions is integral to the open source philosophy.

              • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1113·
                1 year ago

                Being able to fork and publish your own versions is integral to the open source philosophy

                No, that is an enumerated freedom of the free software movement, not open source

                • WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                  18·
                  1 year ago

                  Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. from Wikipedia

                  The same article also talks about the difference between open source and source available:

                  Although the OSI definition of “open-source software” is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term coined by Microsoft in 2001

                  • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    111·
                    1 year ago

                    Under that strict definition, software under the GNU GPL would not be “open source” because the license stays with the code, and is not truly “for any purpose,” which is the same deal with the Epic license: you may use, study, change, and distribute the Unreal source code, but it stays under Epic’s license.

                    If you are talking about the FREEDOM to fork and publish and share and whatever, then you mean Free software.

            • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
              6·
              1 year ago

              Ideas started in the 70s, Free Software Movement happened in the 80s, the term Open Source from the 90s as an alternative to “free” to be more clear.

              It always meant this.

    • RockHornet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      The biggest thing about Epic is that it is NOT a publicly traded company.

      It doesn’t mean that it’s not subject to the “Infinite Growth Disease” but look at their biggest investor: Sony and Tencent.

      Both Game companies that SHOULD be more interested in having access to a good game engine than to make every dollar’s possible.