Godot Engine hits over 50K euros per month in funding

Mystify0771@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.world – 1385 points – Godot Engine hits over 50K euros per month in funding
gamingonlinux.com

One of the big winners of the Unity debacle is the free and open source Godot Engine, which has seen its funding soar to a much more impressive level as Unity basically gave them free advertising.

96

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

It is source available, under the terms Epic licenses to you. Not Open Source

When did the term "open source" start including specifics about licensing terms? My understanding from the past few decades was that "open source" meant the source was available for people to look at and compile.

Open source has always meant under a free license. Being able to fork and publish your own versions is integral to the open source philosophy.

Being able to fork and publish your own versions is integral to the open source philosophy

No, that is an enumerated freedom of the free software movement, not open source

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. from Wikipedia

The same article also talks about the difference between open source and source available:

Although the OSI definition of "open-source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term coined by Microsoft in 2001

Under that strict definition, software under the GNU GPL would not be "open source" because the license stays with the code, and is not truly "for any purpose," which is the same deal with the Epic license: you may use, study, change, and distribute the Unreal source code, but it stays under Epic's license.

If you are talking about the FREEDOM to fork and publish and share and whatever, then you mean Free software.

You are not allowed to distribute unreal source. From their FAQ:

Unreal Engine licensees are permitted to post engine code snippets (up to 30 lines) in a public forum, but only for the purpose of discussing the content of the snippet

But the code is easily visible and you can compile it yourself. If you say "I only run software I 100% knows what it does because I can read it's source code" then Unreal Engine fits, it's open source.

That's not why people want an open source game engine though, they want it to be open source so that they can't do a unity

I agree the phrase "open source" is a bit confusing

they want it to be open source so that they can’t do a unity

That has nothing to do with open source, that has to to with licensing, which I'm pretty sure isn't an issue anyway since I think Unreal versions are tied to specific license versions, i.e. if you download the engine under one term, thats the only one you have to use

Ideas started in the 70s, Free Software Movement happened in the 80s, the term Open Source from the 90s as an alternative to “free” to be more clear.

It always meant this.

It is source available

Yes, open source.

Not Open Source

You mean free/libre? Open source literally just means you can see the source.

Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use the source code,[1] design documents,[2] or content of the product. The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

And then later on...

Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.

Unreal Engine is technically open source, because it's source code is made available to the general public. But it is licensed under a restrictive EULA instead of any of the normal licenses you'd expect for an open source project (MIT, Apache, GPL3, etc).

This is definitely pedantic, but "open source" is a colloquial term, not a technical one. Most people mean FOSS when they say open source, but the terms aren't exactly equivalent. The license that governs the code is really the only part that actually matters.

Let's just call it OpenSource+ at this point ;)