51–60 of 79 posts
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…
Not actually open source. This is yet another instance of a project eager to reap the rewards of being associated with "open source" without committing to it (i.e. with a license that would make it so). Defold is source-available and some flavor of royalty-free with limitations. It's actually worse than that, though, because it goes out of its way to obscure the license terms; in this instance, they're going for asso…
It's close enough. You can use the engine to make whatever games you want, modify the code, rebuild it, etc and profit from the game you create. You're not allowed to fork and then profit from the engine itself, or the editor. That's a really important distinction, and you're right that it should be highlighted. But it seems very reasonable to me. Any real game dev won't care about that. Basically, you can't resell t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I only use Open Source... if you build on a proprietary platform, the owner of that platform can change the terms at any time and you are stuck with a massive cost to change, or you just pay the ransom.
In a competitive marketplace it can be hard to accept less than state-of-the-art. That said, we are seeing that it might be worth starting out on an open source platform and dig in to make it state-of-the-art. Not everyone is interested or capable of doing that, though.
Defold engine code overview - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25569224 - Dec 2020 (45 comments)
The Defold engine code style - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371705 - May 2020 (6 comments)
Defold game engine source now available and free to use for commercial games - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232648 - May 2020 (293 comments)
Defold: 2D Game Engine by King.com - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352546 - March 2016 (87 comments)
Here's why King gave away its 2D mobile game engine Defold - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11321802 - March 2016 (12 comments)
Defold: Free 2D Game Engine for Cross-Platform Publishing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10607837 - Nov 2015 (2 comments)
Defold - Win/Mac/Linux/Android/iOS game engine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4791284 - Nov 2012 (44 comments)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't use the term "Open Source" to describe their engine. They used to, years ago, and now they don't.
[flagged]
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…
What's really missing is one (or multiple) open source "bring your own engine and asset pipeline" editor tool(s). Game editors have pretty much all arrived at the Unity scene model and editor workflow (game object outliner to the left, scene view in the middle, property panel on the right, asset browser at the bottom, plus floating panels for things like animations, material definitions, game specific data, or anythi…
I really wonder how dangerous it is legally. I'm already been (slowly) writing a rust tool to convert some Unity .meta for bevy engine before the Unity pricing crisis.
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…
What's really missing is one (or multiple) open source "bring your own engine and asset pipeline" editor tool(s). Game editors have pretty much all arrived at the Unity scene model and editor workflow (game object outliner to the left, scene view in the middle, property panel on the right, asset browser at the bottom, plus floating panels for things like animations, material definitions, game specific data, or anythi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we no longer use the term "Open Source" as to not confuse it with the OSD. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217 > What am I misreading?
They don't use the term "Open Source" to describe their engine. They used to, years ago, and now they don't.
They didn't say they were going to "no longer use the term (with respect to the Defold engine)". They said weren't using it. Why? Precisely so "as to not confuse it with the OSD". Let's recap:
They used to use the term "open source" (one part of an overall effort to misrepresent themselves and their work). Then they said they took it out—which means that if the term is there now—and it is there now—then they either didn't actually take it out, or they took it out and then put it back in, even after saying they were "sorry for misrepresenting the license under which we make the source code available".
Prevaricating on the whether or not a known bad actor is technically wrong in sidling up next to a line they've already once crossed isn't a defense of the subject of here—because the subject is not strictly confined to whether or not they are crossing it now. It is the very fact that they've indisputably crossed line before, admitted to it and issued a presumed sincere apology when called out, and yet here they are—reaping the rewards of the misleading[1] way in which their messaging is being perceived (again).
1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misleading>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that Godot Foundation doesn't/can't provide certification or support for console integration is not the same thing as "Godot can't be used for console development", let alone "Godot can't be used for console development[...] due to open source licensing issues ". It's not (A)GPLv3. Godot is MIT licensed. Godot can be used for console development—just like _any_ other piece of MIT-licensed code you want to bu…
I think you're getting worked up that I said Godot can't be used for console development, when I really just meant that it can't be used for console development _currently_. I noted that they were working on this in my original comment, and as your blog post shows, it's going well. For posterity, here's Godot's post a year or so ago on the struggles they've had with console middleware over the years. https://godoteng…
Getting a game released to consoles that was developed with Godot is no more difficult than getting one released that was developed with your own proprietary engine; there's nothing related to the license that plays a part here.