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

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 468 posts

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#351

Post by wernsey »

oliwarner wrote: post #273
wernsey wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Id wouldn't have open sourced a second engine if the first was freely taken by a dozen companies and sold in competition with for game sales, giving no source improvements back. I don't agree with this statement, because they used to open source their engines a generation behind their current one. They released the Doom source when Quake was state of the art, so I doubt having another company release a Doom clone i…

Interesting points but it's hard to say for certain without knowing what the individual license terms are. Games continue to sell long after release, and many were released close to the open sourcing dates. Would Id have lost out on long-tail income if the devs could have switched to (eg) MIT terms? And with a MIT IdTech2 engine, would any of their IdTech3 customers layered on their own improvements to the older engi…

So what you're saying is that IW had a commercial license for IdTech3 and made several proprietary changes to it and Id kept getting royalties.

I'm not privy to the details of Id's licensing contracts, but I imagine that they priced their licenses in such a way that licensing was more attractive than creating your own engine.

If IdTech2 was available under a BSD/MIT license then IW could've just taken that, improved it, kept their changes to themselves and not pay Id any royalties.

I see your point, but I'm still inclined to think that it wouldn't have made much of a difference to Id's engine licensing business at the time.

In our hypothetical situation where IdTech2 was available under MIT/BSD then IW would either be stuck with inferior graphics or would've had to spend significant resources to get it up to the standard of IdTech3 (which also comes with the business risk of whether you'll be able to pull it off and how long it would take). They would also have to rely on themselves to get support, rather than Id.

I think executives would in the end just see licensing IdTech3 as the cheaper and less risky option.

I think this is what Carmack's tweet is about: At the time his business partners thought that the GPL license would protect their business and insisted upon it, but now with the benefit of hindsight he recons that the code would've had a greater impact if it was made available under a more permissive license.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#352

Post by nonameiguess »

glogla wrote: post #259
PoignardAzur wrote: post #156

I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary?…

Carmack has net worth of $50 million. Him saying "exploitation by big tech is not a problem, really" is very different than normal person saying it - his well being is not on the line and never will be. Go ask authors of ElasticSearch or Airflow or whatever the new thing that AWS steals will be.

Elastic IPO'd at $250 million and currently has a market cap near $8 billion. It's pretty hard to believe the founders didn't make out as well as John Carmack. If the company goes under tomorrow, they can almost certainly still line their graves one day with Bentleys and Leer jets if they so desire.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#353

Post by globular-toast »

shagie wrote: post #272
globular-toast wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most reasonable people agree that copyright on creative works is a good thing, but it has to be short. 10 years is plenty. What we currently have is "life plus 70 years"! That means well over 100 years. 100 years! It's totally insane, but most people just don't question it. Are we really to believe that there is anyone out there encouraged to write because they know their work will still be copyrighted for 70 years a…

Lets take your 10 years one... If a work loses its copyright after 10 years, I could grab emacs 23.3 and make some changes and release it all close source. Or gcc 4.6.1. iText became AGPL in '09.. version 5.1.1 was released 10 years ago (5.5.13 is current) and it could be brought to a closed source library. Whats more, I believe that the photographs that I took 10 years ago still have as much value as the day that I…

Copyright is a complicated thing and I don't pretend to have all the answers. I'm not suggesting to simply reduce the length of copyright and keep everything else the same. I would like to see copyright on software gone completely. Software has a unique purpose in our lives and should not be treated like other creative works such as music and literature. I believe software development would still be good business without the protection of copyright. Vendors could focus on documentation and support rather than the code itself.

> There are a lot of photographers who's livelihood is based on their library of photographs that they have taken over the years.

There are a lot of people whose livelihood is based on crime. This isn't a valid argument for what is right or wrong.

Copyright is supposed to encourage new works for the greater good of society. This is written into the US Constitution, no less. It would be interesting to see if lengthening the term of copyright has caused an increase in the number or quality of creative works being produced. I highly doubt that it has.

> A prediction / alternate world -- if copyright was 10 years on software, you'd get an EaaS model - everything as a service.

Why would it change anything for existing free/open-source software? We'd still have GNU/Linux and the BSDs. If it made proprietary software even worse, then so be it. More reason to use free software.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#354

Post by sdxsd »

epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

I understand, I personally would not like a company, especially one that does not respects users privacy using my code in any way.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#355

Post by x4e »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #323
epaga wrote: post #48

I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Tho…

The "it's more important that your code is not exploited by corporations" crowd doesn't actually find GPL suitable anymore either, it still allows too much exploitation. This position increasingly wants technically not-open-source licenses that reserve the right to profit from the code for... actually, a certain corporation, the one of the "original developers". It's not really about "by corporations", but "big corpo…

To give an example of this: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/small-business/1.0.0/ and https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#356

Post by alex_smart »

fsflover wrote: post #346
alex_smart wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they literally set it up to deliver that same punchline in the next paragraph. Looks like you got too excited to be able to read the entire comment? XD

No, I was aware that the commenter was on my side. I just suggested an alternative reply to the invalid argument.

No, you suggested the exact same reply he had already given, just in the next paragraph.

> it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say

The only thing your "alternative" reply changes from that is grammar.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#357

Post by quadrifoliate »

vsw02 wrote: post #121
saurik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and befor…

You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software? Develope…

This might be better understood as a social concept rather than a legal one. Suppose you have a social group, and the way people are admitted into it is by invitations.

The GPL is someone who will invite anyone who asks, as long as they themselves will also commit to inviting anyone who asks. That is, anyone who is invited by the GPL person cannot discriminate about who else they admit to the group.

The BSD is someone who will invite anyone who asks, and they can be as cliquey as they like. They can discriminate on any basis, or form in-groups among themselves where other people are not permitted.

Does the first or the second social group seem better to you? This might be a good predictor of whether the GPL or BSD model is more intuitive.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#358

Post by insulanus »

yeahforsureman wrote: post #243
yosamino wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. I am not sure which GPL advocates you have spoken to, but I like the GPL, because it puts me center as a user. I can use and copy a programm as I see fit. And if I come to a point where I think something has gone wrong with it or something is missing, then I can modify it myself, or pay someone to help me do that, and I can distribute these mo…

What if that "bad" is insignificant compared to the good produced by that code as part of proprietary software? That scenario is impossible with GPL. Effectively, you're just restricting the business models of your users. It has worked for some projects (Linux above all) but if you're talking about a small project that likely stays small, I don't know if it usually makes much sense. Also, your convoluted explanation…

> Effectively, you're just restricting the business models of your users. It has worked for some projects (Linux above all)

I think you are understating how crucial a license like the GPL was in Linux getting to where we are today. It was essential.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#359

Post by x4e »

epaga wrote: post #85
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the GPL license make it "useless for any commercial projects whatsoever"? Many commercial projects use GPL software. The only thing you have to do is provide sources under the same license if you release binaries. If you're not even willing to do that I understand some people rather have you not use their software.

"Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.

If it is so small then just write your own alternative. Otherwise it sounds like the small library is actually quite valuable and perhaps such a license is justifiable.

Re: “I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

#360

Post by trasz »

renewiltord wrote: post #268
juped wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this does not in any way prevent commercial use

Really? So if I want to include BSD code without attributing in my commercial software, I can distribute the binary? That’s rhetorical. I can’t do so legally without receiving a different license for the copyrighted code. The counter example to what you claim is trivial to construct.

Yes, you can, assuming we're talking about the modern BSD license.

So, your point was?

Post reply on HN