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

Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

orbiter-forum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#41

Post by bruce511 »

the_af wrote: post #38
bruce511 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be picky, but the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process." The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Given that the list of folk who can compile for consoles is very limited, this would not be an existential burden for them. Indeed, even if they targeted a common develop…

> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process."" It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary . If it's GPL'ed, other…

>> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software.

I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.)

There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#42

Post by bluecatswim »

bruce511 wrote: post #41
the_af wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process."" It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary . If it's GPL'ed, other…

>> You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.) There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...

>(since the parent post was primarily about money)

I don't think so, it was about making money through selling it as proprietary software.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#43

Post by wedesoft »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #36

Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the Moon's orbit, but you have to do it when Moon itself is nearby. If you are 1/4 orbital period ahead of it, you are screwed. It also ruined space movies like "Gravity" for me, because pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to N…

I think you meant to say "pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to NOT get to that station"

Edited: made mistake as well ;)

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#45

Post by 41209 »

rbanffy wrote: post #24
marcodiego wrote: post #18

I wonder how hard would be to port it to linux. Maybe dxvk may help? Also, latest version is from 2016, so it looks like software that doesn't brings any money is finally open source because there is no hope to make any in the future. I'm sorry for them but glad they open sourced it. Would love if outcomes like this happened more often.

It’s MIT licensed, so there’s nothing stopping someone from getting it, making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process. This is why I’m always sad when I see a project opening as MIT instead of GPL.

>This is why I’m always sad when I see a project opening as MIT instead of GPL.

Counterpoint, many companies won't allow GPL software even if eventually it'd be open sourced again.

I personally wouldn't mind a for sale version of this game updated to run on my phone. Even if it's 15$ or so. Without a profit motive the number of people who would bother to continue development is much lower.

Your also free to fork it , make the ultimate version and GPL it

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#47

Post by jaytaylor »

tito wrote: post #46

Anyone who loves this kind of stuff should check out The Orbital Index, a curated weekly newsletter of all things space: https://orbitalindex.com Run by two friends of mine who are avid HNers.

And they even provide an RSS feed!

https://orbitalindex.com/feed.xml

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#48

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

wedesoft wrote: post #43
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #36

Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the Moon's orbit, but you have to do it when Moon itself is nearby. If you are 1/4 orbital period ahead of it, you are screwed. It also ruined space movies like "Gravity" for me, because pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to N…

I think you meant to say "pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to NOT get to that station" Edited: made mistake as well ;)

Yeah, my bad english. Used word 'thrust' to describe a burn in the opposite direction, totally forgetting that thrust is a reactionary force. :-/

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#49

Post by austinl »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #36

Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the Moon's orbit, but you have to do it when Moon itself is nearby. If you are 1/4 orbital period ahead of it, you are screwed. It also ruined space movies like "Gravity" for me, because pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to N…

I had a similar experience when playing Kerbal for the first time in high school. I thought that NASA got to the moon by simply thrusting in a straight line from Earth in a way that would intersect with the moon's orbit and boy was I wrong!

But now I've found that most people I talk to about this — that also weren't alive during the space race where this was regularly explained on television — have the same naive idea that you can get to the moon by going straight up at it with the right timing.

Instead, you learn that you need to enter orbit and burn prograde at your apoapsis, burn retrograde at the moon's periapsis, etc. — really fascinating and complex stuff! If the curriculum would've allowed it, I feel like I could've spent a whole semester playing and learning from KSP — these kind of games are truly the top of "games for learning" genre.

Re: Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is now open source

#50

Post by goodpoint »

bruce511 wrote: post #27
rbanffy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s MIT licensed, so there’s nothing stopping someone from getting it, making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process. This is why I’m always sad when I see a project opening as MIT instead of GPL.

Not to be picky, but the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software for consoles and make a lot of money in the process." The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Given that the list of folk who can compile for consoles is very limited, this would not be an existential burden for them. Indeed, even if they targeted a common develop…

> the GPL would not stop someone "making major changes, and releasing it as proprietary software ...

> The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code.

If they release the source code it's not proprietary software anymore - by definition - and GPL achieved its goal.

> the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money

The GPL allows selling modified (FOSS) versions with extended contents e.g. artwork, music.

But it also allows the original author to do so without succumbing to the competition from companies that leverage their dominant market position.

With MIT freeloaders win.

Post reply on HN