Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Pokémon battle simulation engine

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 49 posts

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#5

Post by johnisgood »

filmor wrote: post #4
glimshe wrote: post #2

THANK YOU for including a C API and licensing MIT instead of GPL. Edit: clarified comment on C usage. I wanted to praise the API not the underlying language.

It is written in zig.

Maybe he is referring to https://github.com/pkmn/engine?tab=readme-ov-file#c.

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#6

Post by johnisgood »

seethedeaduu wrote: post #3
glimshe wrote: post #2

THANK YOU for including a C API and licensing MIT instead of GPL. Edit: clarified comment on C usage. I wanted to praise the API not the underlying language.

So you plan to use it in closed source projects? And why does it matter if it's C?

Why does it matter if it's Rust? In any case, it is written in Zig, not C.

But there is https://github.com/pkmn/engine?tab=readme-ov-file#c.

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#7

Post by glimshe »

seethedeaduu wrote: post #3
glimshe wrote: post #2

THANK YOU for including a C API and licensing MIT instead of GPL. Edit: clarified comment on C usage. I wanted to praise the API not the underlying language.

So you plan to use it in closed source projects? And why does it matter if it's C?

What I plan to do with it isn't important - thus the beauty of the license. MIT gives me freedom without forcing me into a certain source availability philosophy.

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#8

Post by malicka »

glimshe wrote: post #7
seethedeaduu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you plan to use it in closed source projects? And why does it matter if it's C?

What I plan to do with it isn't important - thus the beauty of the license. MIT gives me freedom without forcing me into a certain source availability philosophy.

I get that permissive licenses are popular now, but “freedom to make sure other people don’t have freedom” still doesn’t feel like a compelling argument.

In specific cases, they make sense purely practically; but generally? It feels like a huge error for the whole world to leave copyleft and the GPL behind. The reason we can run Linux on everything is because Torvalds chose the GPL, and so vendors are forced to share their drivers if they use the kernel. And that is a truly magnificent achievement.

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#9

Post by CarVac »

glimshe wrote: post #7
seethedeaduu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you plan to use it in closed source projects? And why does it matter if it's C?

What I plan to do with it isn't important - thus the beauty of the license. MIT gives me freedom without forcing me into a certain source availability philosophy.

MIT lets you take away user freedom.

Re: A Pokémon battle simulation engine

#10

Post by Joel_Mckay »

malicka wrote: post #8
glimshe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I plan to do with it isn't important - thus the beauty of the license. MIT gives me freedom without forcing me into a certain source availability philosophy.

I get that permissive licenses are popular now, but “freedom to make sure other people don’t have freedom” still doesn’t feel like a compelling argument. In specific cases, they make sense purely practically; but generally? It feels like a huge error for the whole world to leave copyleft and the GPL behind. The reason we can run Linux on everything is because Torvalds chose the GPL, and so vendors are forced to share…

Personally prefer Apache license over GPL simply to mitigate contamination problems, commercial relationship contexts, and patent risks.

Some groups can get rather fussy over the definition of "free", but one can't assume some personal use-case still makes sense a decade from now. =3

Post reply on HN