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

Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

box2d.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#101

Post by sillysaurusx »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #66
LeBit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.

I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.

I find it baffling in the other direction. The whole point of licensing is to ensure you’re a decent person.

If you’re creating something new and you dare try to copy anything without a license, the pushback is unanimous and universal: everyone agrees you’re a bad person for even thinking of it.

This is the same argument in the opposite direction. By fulfilling the terms of a license, you’re ensuring you play by the rules. In fact, licenses are the only real protection that open source maintainers have.

So why diss on someone for following the license terms? This whole moralizing and tut-tutting is a weird branch of the convo.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#102

Post by sillysaurusx »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #93
sosodev wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fine perspective, but the whole point of law is to guarantee outcomes. The license could easily say “if you make more than $500M, you must pay me $1M”. Why is that not an acceptable solution here?

Have you ever taken part in a legal dispute? The "whole point of law is to guarantee outcomes" sounds like someone who has not. The easiest, most "acceptable solution" is to obviously throw the oss maintainer who made your hundreds of millions possible a bone. It's not that complicated. Why you find this such an odd notion I find rather strange.

I find it strange you’re arguing for something beyond the licensing terms. Imagine if companies were run that way. "Hey, we did an especially good job mowing your lawn, so please pay us double. You have a rich house, you can afford it. Oh and if you don’t pay us, you’re a bad person and should feel bad."

This is exactly the same argument: you’re saying the open source maintainer who knowingly released their code as open source (and got famous for it being open source) should be paid way more than they asked for ($0) based on vibes. Society doesn’t work that way. Companies don’t work that way. And it’s baffling people are saying open source should work that way. He already got the fame and free publicity from being the maker of Box2D, which he wouldn’t have gotten unless he released it for free. You can’t get the major benefits of that and then ask for a million dollars because "kindness".

If you want to be professional, keep it professional. Otherwise everyone here saying that the company should feel bad are fooling themselves. You’re owed what you ask for.

Tipping culture has obscured this somewhat. You’re supposed to give more money if they do a really good job. But it’s that way so that the business can pay employees less money. Tipping, like identity theft, is one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time: you’re considered a bad person if you don’t tip, and that it’s your fault if your bank fails to verify your identity. Both of these are bogus.

I tip, because 15% is the normalized rate. But it shouldn’t be our problem. It’s the company’s problem to pay their employees. And it shouldn’t be the business’s problem that they made a lot of money using something that was knowingly given away for $0.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#103

Post by raincole »

gregsadetsky wrote: post #56
tikotus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was time for questions, a man from the audience asked what physics engine the game uses. Vesterbacka gives the correct answer, Box2D, to which the person replied with another question. "Why isn't it mentioned in the credits? And by the way, I'm Erin Catto, the creat…

To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…

Personally, I define fairness as being able to use a piece of code however the license permitted. "Kindness" might be a better word.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#104

Post by protocolture »

tikotus wrote: post #55
gregsadetsky wrote: post #53

Whenever I see Box2D mentioned (the library by the same author as Box3D, obviously), I think back to this story from many years ago https://kotaku.com/this-guy-created-angry-birds-physics-and-...

I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was time for questions, a man from the audience asked what physics engine the game uses. Vesterbacka gives the correct answer, Box2D, to which the person replied with another question. "Why isn't it mentioned in the credits? And by the way, I'm Erin Catto, the creat…

>But one thing amazed us all. It was impressive that the marketing guy knew which physics engine was used!

Yeah that was my immediate take away.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#105

Post by left-struck »

sosodev wrote: post #68
nananana9 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.

He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.

It’s not a contract, a contract requires an exchange of value both ways.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#106

Post by jamesfinlayson »

nasso_dev wrote: post #5

> On the Valve side, Rubikon continues to evolve and Dirk has developed optimizations (similar to those in Box3D) in a new engine called Ragnarok. Look for that in future Valve games. wait....

This hobby version of Rubikon isn't open source then is it? I can't find anything obvious.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#107

Post by left-struck »

raincole wrote: post #103
gregsadetsky wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…

Personally, I define fairness as being able to use a piece of code however the license permitted. "Kindness" might be a better word.

I think you’re confusing something being permissible with something being fair

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#109

Post by jasonkester »

sosodev wrote: post #62
gregsadetsky wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023…

I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.

I don’t think this is about fairness so much as a wish that developers would look out for their own self interest just a tiny bit.

We all get the full-court open source brainwashing during our early years of learning about programming, so it’s hard to ever step back and look at creating something from any other lens than “I should release this as open source”.

That’s the default, and anything less might get you grumped at by “the community”, so it’s the safest option.

But if your thing can be picked up by a megacorp and used as the basis for their $100M product, it might be in your best interest to carve yourself out a little clause that lets you capture some of that.

Re: Box3D, an open source 3D physics engine

#110

Post by erwincoumans »

flohofwoe wrote: post #8
RobLach wrote: post #3

Box2D was a foundation for a lot of interesting physics oriented indie games in my day. I wonder if the landscape is empty enough for a resurgence.

There weren't many free and open source 3D physics engines to begin with. The ancient forefathers are ODE, Bullet and Newton Dynamics (all first released in the early 2000s), then nothing(?) for nearly two decades until Jolt in 2021 and now Box3D. Any addition to this small and exclusive list is very welcome :)

Makes me feel old, as original Bullet creator.
Post reply on HN