51–60 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't answer the question of why.
I feel like the answer to "why" is on the website if you read about the foundation's objectives: https://defold.com/foundation/
Tbh I'm a little more confused after reading this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone buy their game engine when it is available for free? Seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't/won't exist.
The modified engine someone else is selling could have a potentially important extra features. For example a company might try to sell a version of engine which has been ported to a console which original engine doesn't support. Game porting companies are very common and if it's their main business then they will usually have inhouse libraries or modified engine versions which significantly simplify the porting proce…
Edit: clarity
They have gone with an interesting licensing solution here. I really appreciate that it is labeled as a source-available license instead of Open Source. https://defold.com/license/ You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL). You can freely monetize games built with the engine, and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch. And finally, the reason why this…
This is an awesome license. More products should be source-available like this. This is what sustainable "equitable open source" looks like. It keeps the team that built the product able to monetize, but it does so without harming or killing the community. The community has full access to the code and can modify it, make money from products made with it, and can presumably take over if the originating organization di…
Without RMS swinging hard one way and without Amazon swinging hard the other way, we would not have this license.
It is because all of these shenanigans that we now kind of have a license that solves these issues, and surely when the landscape changes again, a new license scheme will be needed.
They have gone with an interesting licensing solution here. I really appreciate that it is labeled as a source-available license instead of Open Source. https://defold.com/license/ You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL). You can freely monetize games built with the engine, and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch. And finally, the reason why this…
[flagged]
The other options include MonoGame https://monogame.net/ (Stardew Valley was written in it) and of-course the biggies like Unity or Unreal. A lot depends on how much investment in learning one wants to make, what is the feature set one is looking for, the trade-offs or platforms one wants to keep in mind and which programming language / style one want to use.
They have gone with an interesting licensing solution here. I really appreciate that it is labeled as a source-available license instead of Open Source. https://defold.com/license/ You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL). You can freely monetize games built with the engine, and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch. And finally, the reason why this…
This is an awesome license. More products should be source-available like this. This is what sustainable "equitable open source" looks like. It keeps the team that built the product able to monetize, but it does so without harming or killing the community. The community has full access to the code and can modify it, make money from products made with it, and can presumably take over if the originating organization di…
It is a really nice and fair source-available license and there should be more of this, but a license like theirs also restricts what kind of software you can make in a rather harsh way.
Since you can't commercialise game engine products and they are defined in a broad way. You could land in legal issues. Game engine products are defined in the license as:
“Game Engine Product” shall mean software used for video game development. This includes both the content authoring software and the software used to show the created content.
IANAL, but map editors, modding tools and many other kind of tools that can be used for developing video games could be in violation of the license.
Since meaning of "commercialise" isn't being defined or narrowed in the license small creators using Patreon or the like while asking donations could be classified as a violation too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the answer to "why" is on the website if you read about the foundation's objectives: https://defold.com/foundation/
≥Support the open source community and the use of open licenses. Tbh I'm a little more confused after reading this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don't want somebody else to sell their game engine? It's pretty clear, isn't it?
Why would anyone buy their game engine when it is available for free? Seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't/won't exist.
There’s no reason to assume that a paid fork would reduce the number of free Defold users; it can happen, but depends on what is built and offered, and sometimes paid forks are good for the ecosystem and increase the number of overall users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don't want somebody else to sell their game engine? It's pretty clear, isn't it?
That doesn't answer the question of why.