31–40 of 79 posts
I've been seeing a ton of game engines on hackernews in the last couple days. I think many hobby game developers don't realize the astounding important of designer oriented tools. Even most game companies have coders create designer oriented gui tools for games to be more productive. Whatever open source engine cracks an easy 3d player controller, dialogue system, human retargeted animation system, and easy editor ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is literally in top menu bar. Leading to page that says that Defond is not actually open source.
"has navigation that takes you to open source stuff" is not "claims it's open source". The title is just wrong and they have clearly fixed the thing people were complaining about last time. It's not reading between the lines, it's simply misreading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is literally in top menu bar. Leading to page that says that Defond is not actually open source.
"has navigation that takes you to open source stuff" is not "claims it's open source". The title is just wrong and they have clearly fixed the thing people were complaining about last time. It's not reading between the lines, it's simply misreading.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217>
What am I misreading?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They are free to run their business and we are free to point out how they distort meaning of "open source". They can easily call it "source available" and no one will bother them. There is actually open source game engine called Godot that licensed under standard MIT License. We should not let companies like Defold Foundation to mislead anyone to think their software product license is equal in terms of freedoms prov…
> Q: Why don't you use the term Open Source when talking about the source code?
> A: The definition of the term Open Source is heavily debated. The Open Source Initiative has created a definition of the term Open Source where it must be possible to commercialise the source code. The Defold Foundation has made the decision to prevent commercialisation of the game engine and editor (the Game Engine Product). We want Defold to always be free to use! (You can of course still sell your games and plugins and you can modify the engine as much as you like).
Their foundation charter is interesting, too: https://defold.com/foundation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"has navigation that takes you to open source stuff" is not "claims it's open source". The title is just wrong and they have clearly fixed the thing people were complaining about last time. It's not reading between the lines, it's simply misreading.
In my opinion they intentionally keep it misleading. And fact that every once in a while someone posts about their project with "open source" in title is good proof that it does confuse a lot of people.
The Defold editor was written in Clojure, is this still the case?
I've been seeing a ton of game engines on hackernews in the last couple days. I think many hobby game developers don't realize the astounding important of designer oriented tools. Even most game companies have coders create designer oriented gui tools for games to be more productive. Whatever open source engine cracks an easy 3d player controller, dialogue system, human retargeted animation system, and easy editor ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything about this screams, "We know exactly what we're doing, but we're going about it in such a way that we can claim plausible deniability." (Feel free to address literally any of the pre-emptive points I made in my post, rather than responding as if I didn't already make them.)
You could cut to the chase and point out what isn't open source. Also, if that source is available, you could point out which definition of open source you are going by. Oh, and please don't say "the standard definition", because that is definitely contested, even after all these years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also should be noted that Godot can't be used for console development, except for the Steam Deck, due to open source licensing issues. > To develop for consoles, one must be licensed as a company. As an open source project, Godot has no legal structure to provide console ports. > Console SDKs are secret and covered by non-disclosure agreements. Even if we could get access to them, we could not publish the platform-sp…
> due to open source licensing issues. It's have nothing to do with licensing. MIT License that Godot licensed under is perfectly fine for keeping console support closed-source or source-available. Problem is that Godot didn't have legal entity that can directly work with platform owners. This is why some of Godot maintaiers founded W4 Games and they're actively working on building console suport for all modern conso…
I disagree there. Licensing is still a huge issue with incorporating a console SDK. Each one plays by their own ball game, and it will take a tremendous amount of effort to work through the legal, business, and licensing issues for each platform. And once that's resolved, you'll still need to provide an avenue for end-users to obtain and hook up the SDK to the open source engine which sounds like quite the engineering effort to simplify it.
Edit: And it looks like Godot is pulling it off quite well, thank you for the link to their blog post