Defold game engine source now available and free to use for commercial games
defold.com
defold.com
Can't wait to patch more native moonscript support into a fork :evil:
If you want to see an overview of a somewhat typical and polished mobile game done with Defold, here's a non-King dev showing off his work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4pJ8A3YS4
Also, in relevant news, Corona (the other major Lua game engine[1]) is also being open-sourced, and renamed to Solar2D: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22326462
[1] with dev ecosystem of extensions, build services etc - without that Love2D might also qualify
Before, I would try to learn how to make games by dabbling with SDL/DirectX/Cocos2D/etc, but figured out that you can't really do much with these frameworks as a beginner than just copy-pasting code in the books and tutorials. I was really able to make "complete" apps once I've grabbed a no-nonsense batteries-included framework like Corona, and I would have wasted far more time on useless low-level stuff if I haven't stumbled upon it.
Oh, and about the unfortunate name they've decided with: who really knew that this coincidence would happen haha...
Also, you probably can't name anything COVID, but I think that's a less likely scenario.
It would be fun to see them reverting the brand once again. What bad luck!
Perhaps this is purely attributable to the British sense of irony.
CoffeeScript development was one of the most regretful experiences I've had. Delimiters are optional even when invoking functions. A statement like f(g(h(x))) becomes painful to read. Plus, sometimes you want to use a function as a parameter, how do you reason about that? Welcome to the Twilight zone.
Whitespace in CoffeeScript has a meaning. In Python, that is the case too, but it only applies to statement blocks. In CoffeeScript, the situations you will find are just absurd, such as the fact that inconsistent indentation is allowed.
Code is written once, read many times. CoffeeScript emphasizes rapid writing not reading. In that sense, CoffeeScript is to JavaScript what Stenography is to Writing.
What I personally like a lot is how it makes it easier to write efficient Lua by because (for example) it makes local variables the default.
Also, FWIW the LuaRocks server is written in Moonscript, and that's a pretty important bit of Lua infrastructure I'd say.
Nitpick: The server is openresty (Nginx). The web-framework is Lapis, which is Lua and can be developed on with Lua or Moonscript.
We have updated the website to reflect this and we no longer use the term "Open Source" as to not confuse it with the OSD.
The Defold license, complete with a summary of what you can and cannot do, can be seen on our license page: https://defold.com/license/
We have also Tweeted this: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
It's really not okay to be capitalizing on the FOSS brand without being FOSS. It's a kick in the groin to the FOSS community when companies do this.
Something being "open source" does not imply anything about its license.
Suggesting that only GPL-like software is allowed to use the term "open source" is crazy. It doesn't reflect the world we live in at all: there are thousands of projects on github without a license, or with some "free for non-military use"-type of license, or MIT/BSD-like licenses...
EDIT: "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” (Richard Stallman, GNU Philosophy: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ). Not that Stallman did much better with "free software", which as the article argues, has the obvious meaning that 'the software is "for free"'.
Having to avoid expressions like "free software" or "open source" because two organizations decided to appropriate common english expressions to give them a complicated meaning is nuts.
Copyleft, free software, and open source all have different meanings, and GitHub has no restrictions on the license of software using its platform, and you're deliberately confoudning these things here to sow confusion. There are millions of different software licenses, yes, but that doesn't make them all open source. Give me a break. Is Windows "open source" by your reckoning? I has a license, after all, and I can decompile it, after all.
Violating a EULA shouldn’t be a crime but it’s not always that clear cut.
EULAs concern what an end user can do with a piece of software on their own system or systems they control. I don't see how this intersects the CFAA at all.
And? There are a lot of Open Source licenses, and even Free Sofware licenses besides GPLv3.
but neither does LLVM (and many people do not consider LLVM to be free software
Note that "Free Software" and "Open Source" are different - albeit related - things.
nor the dozens projects on Github that don't have a license at all, or that have a license of the form "Free for non-commercial purposes" or the millions of flavors of that ("Free for non-military use", etc.).
And those things are not Open Source. They may be "Source Available", or "Shared Source" or "Something Else", but "Open Source" has a de facto definition of "uses a license which is OSD compliant."
The distinction really doesn’t seem that important for most use cases so it’s not that surprising a weaker, possibly more useful interpretation has become common...
There isn't any significant confusion. There is a token amount of confusion, which is pretty much always clarified every time one of these threads comes up.
(and if something is right and true based on a definition I don’t think you can call it de facto either...).
It's de facto, not de jure, because OSI has no authority to enforce their definition, since they don't have a trademark (at least not a registered trademark) on the term "Open Source". What makes it the de facto definition is just usage. By and large, among the people who care about the legal details of Open Source licensing, the OSD is accepted. Yes, there are a handful of exceptions, but that's OK. It doesn't change the basic point.
Real usage by real people not particularly passionate about adherence to the OSI definition—to me this is its de facto meaning. I’m not saying it’s correct usage, but it’s definitely real and frequent.
It’s my impression a non-negligible number of people share the same understanding, evidence by the fact that this discussion apparently is recurring? Even those who corrected the Defold release language knew what was intended, even if they said it was incorrect usage of the phrase.
Your response assumed the number of people who use the phrase with a looser meaning is small; I just don’t think that is true based on my day to day experiences.
I'm not talking about "people who are particularly passionate about adherence to the OSI definition" though. I'm talking about people who are "particularly interested in the actual technicalities of what OSS is", not all of whom may agree with the OSD. But I still argue that such a significant majority do that it constitutes the de facto definition.
Your response assumed the number of people who use the phrase with a looser meaning is small;
Not at all. I am saying that the people using that phrase in the "looser" sense, as you put it, are using it in a colloquial and not technical sense, and that such usage has no meaning as far as what the de facto meaning is, when used in an actual technical context. That's just lack of knowledge, not any attempt to create a different definition.
I see it more like somebody who doesn't know much about cars referring to an engine block as a carburetor. Even if a lot of people make that same mistake, it's still a mistake and the actual definitions of "engine block" and "carburetor" don't change.
This is incorrect. Over 20 years ago people who would later be part of OSI _coined_, not co-opted, the term (within the scope of software). It was coined to mean _exactly the same thing_ as "Free Software"; the OSD was directly derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines and there have only been two licenses, as I recall, that are OSI approved and the FSF have said are non-free.
You also confuse "OSI-approved license" with "GPL", because the OSI (and FSF) have approved permissive BSD and MIT and many other non-copyleft licenses. Here you go: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Defold is Open, meaning that it is possible to modify and extend. It is actually possible to extend the engine even without source code access thanks to our native extension system.
Try googling "free and open" and tell me that this choice of words is not misleading after seeing the results.
Note: I'm not taking part in the OSS/FOSS drama, I'm just making a note that if you did want to change all occurrences, you might want to consider that one as well.
This makes me realise that I need to update my LinkedIn profile if anyone bothers to check it!
https://defold.com/2020/05/20/Some-thoughts-on-the-open-sour...
This gives a good overview https://defold.com/product/
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23233336 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217
> Defold allows you to see the internals, but if something doesn't work the way you want, you can't change it and still get to sell your game.
> You are free to modify Defold and you are not required to share the changes
but also:
> You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine
I think they mean you cannot start a business selling your fork of their game-engine. I don't think they mean you may not use a modified engine in a commercial product. This seems to fit with the full text of the licence, which says:
> You do not sell or otherwise commercialise the Work or Derivative Works as a Game Engine Product
Just something to think about if you were planning on allowing mods in your game. Do they only care about how you advertise the product, or will they be looking at how it's actually being used?
Typically, people may buy a game in order to play its free mods, but you can't tweak the engine and then sell that modified engine to other game studios. Whatever happens, the end-user has to have a licence for the original game.
This is a little different though, as you can modify the engine, then sell your game, and permit payware mods to use your modified version of the engine, perhaps even insisting on taking a cut. All the while the Defold guys don't get a penny.
#1 OTOH deals with "selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." This would seem to be the clause that would be violated by a "you can't sell this commercially" clause. Although, looking at it, I just realized that somebody could argue that due to the use of the phrase "component of an aggregate software distribution", that this actually isn't violated by a restriction on selling the software alone! I'm pretty sure that's not the way that was ever intended to be interpreted though, and that an aggregate can include as few as 1 components. Otherwise it would be silly, because you could always then in turn create an "aggregate" by adding some arbitrary files of your own.
#6 is titled "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour" and explicitly refers to commercial use as a field of endeavour. The annotated version[1] says:
> Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
Restricting commercial distribution of modified versions would discriminate against commercial users. I argue that the word "use" in this context is referring not only to running the program but to the exercise of any of the freedoms outlined in the Open Source Definition.
That depends on whether or not "use" and "distribute" are seen as two completely different "things", or whether distribution is a subtype of usage. It makes more sense, to me, for it to be the latter - but the actual text of the OSD is a little bit ambiguous on that point. At least to my reading.
Still, regardless of how one justifies it, I feel like it's pretty well accepted that a "you can't sell this commercially" clause in a license makes it non-OSD compliant. As it should be.
Defold uses message passing, which initially I was very excited about, but it turns out my brain is used to thinking about objects and references and I kind of struggled to do simple things in Defold which is part of the reason I switched to Unity.
One thing that did make it over in the port is a cool actor-based AI that I probably wouldn't have thought to use if I started the game in Unity.
Defold does give you a ton of control though and it would enable more customization than Unity, especially now that it is open source.
I should also say the Defold community is great and the devs behind the game engine are very helpful.
And this is my first game so any difficulties with Defold could be due to my initial learning curve.
I've just actually started to do something with Godot and I'd be very grateful to find out the differences between these two engines.
Godot was a pleasure to use, I didn't feel the need to revisit Defold.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread, source-available is not the same thing as Open Source.
edit Not sure why I'm being downvoted here. This really isn't up for debate. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23233336 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217
By open sourcing Defold and handing it to the Defold Foundation we build trust with the community. It guarantees that Defold will be around regardless of what happens with King. And by handing over Defold to the Defold Foundation we believe it gives a lot of credibility to Defold as a strong and independent open source game engine.
I love the release, I appreciate the time and effort, and I'm sure you have the best intentions, but the term "open source" has a very well defined meaning for very well defined reasons, and those reasons are hugely important to the last few decades of technological development. Please don't break the definition, even if you have the best of intentions!
Once again, thanks and congratulations on the release!
> The license grants you the following permissions:
> - You are free to commercialise any software created using Defold
Edit (after reading other comments): Ohh, derivative works of the Editor itself cannot be commercialized. Hmm.
So, instead of silently killing Defold a second life as an open source project seems more merciful for the people that internally believed in the project.
When I used Unreal Engine, I found and fixed engine bugs.
When I used Unity, I found engine bugs and we had to work around them with ugly hacks.
When I used Defold, we shipped without ruining into any trouble.
Of course, Unity and UE are much more powerful. But if you don't need that, simple is king.
It also focuses a lot on providing fast iteration times. You can hot-reload changed assets onto a device while the game is running. For most asset types, you'll see the change on device in less than a second. Similarly, a Build and Run cycle from scratch for a moderately complex game project such as Blossom Blast typically takes around a minute or so, and subsequent cached builds can start in a couple of seconds.
(Edit: Full disclosure, I worked on the Defold editor.)
What's the advantage of this vs Godot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajX09xQ_UEg
(I don't know if this is an advantage/disadvantage compared to Godot or how that extensibility compares)
edit: clarification, see Ponk's comment below
https://defold.com/manuals/introduction/
> Defold uses Lua for all its logic control. The engine is a fast C++ piece of machinery, but it is controlled on a high level by Lua programs.
You can write game-specific extensions to the runtime in C++ if your game requires it, but most games are authored in just Lua.
Edit: Typo.
// A terrible hack as an attempt to avoid a deadlock when loading native libraries.Lua has something of the schoolhouse feel about it, too prim and rigid like Pascal.
So I am presently thinking of moving on to Phaser.io.
https://gist.github.com/raysan5/909dc6cf33ed40223eb0dfe625c0...
It includes "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"
"You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine" does not meet (6).
I'm not even going to start on the use of the term "free".
On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.
EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
See my comment above for links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23234029
I understand that you have nothing but loathing and contempt for my approach to software development and you are welcome to promote your philosophy but you will find it impossible to bend simple language to your wishes as long as there are people who see things completely differently.
What words would you like me to use for open source software that you're not going to trample over in 5 years when it becomes convenient for advertising your software?
Option a) Makeup a non-generic not already in use term and trademark it.
Option b) Just say "licensed under <well_known_license>".
What you're required to do to get the exclusivity you're looking for is well established in the rules we are all required to play by known as "the law".
Otherwise, I can say something like this and expect you to understand me: Most people believe that an onlooker underhandedly ignores an omphalos, but they need to remember how non-chalantly the cigar about an espadrille laughs out loud. When a menagé à trois for a labyrinth rejoices, a starlet living with a clodhopper feels nagging remorse. An unsightly impresario is darling. When the surly menagé à trois starts reminiscing about lost glory, a curmudgeonly bubble ceases to exist.
Or I can redefine water to mean any clear liquid, including sulfuric acid, and sell that to you, and claim you should've understood what I meant when you die.
The words "open source" have a plain pre-existing meaning. "Water" does not.
Now to go ahead and make your argument for you - this use of the term open source might be like if I went ahead and sold you (having to force this a bit, since I've failed to find a good example of a noun) insurance against kicking the bucket, and then I tried to define it as insurance against literally kicking buckets. Possibly you can find a better example, but that's the best I could come up with and
- "the bucket" clearly distinguishes the term from being merely descriptive
- Selling insurance against kicking buckets makes no sense, unlike "open source software" where "open" means "anyone can look at it"
- Kicking the bucket is a phrase with a much longer history than OSI defined open source software.
Go find your own words. "Shared source" has been used for literally decades to mean Defold's exact situation - why would you not use that?
Yes you can, some people will hate it some people will like it, just like anything else
Language is useless when it can't be used to create shared understanding.
Ok so for the purpose of "shared understanding", let use my preferred definition of open source then.
This is actually a rather good description of what the OSI did. They took a term with plain meaning that was already in use and tried to define it to mean something else.
Now people are getting mad when other people use the phrase "Donal Trump is a space alien" to literally mean that "Donald Trump is an alien from space".
(I can only assume that people have previously said that Donal Trump is a space alien... there are a lot of strange people in the world after all)
- The OSI claims to have coined the term in 1998 https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
- Here is a use of the term, 7 times, and as the main object, from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
- Here is a use of the term, as a proper noun, from 1993 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...
> "open source" was not in common use at the time that OSI decided to use it.
But I suspect that if you search reddit/hn discussions in that period thoroughly you'll find a few cases... feel free if you want to waste your time.
Oops, that was a typo on my part, the OSI claims to have invented it in 1998 not 1988, updated my original post here too
See the source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
Epic, Microsoft, IBM, and hundreds of other companies, big and small, have been careful to avoid this issue specifically because there is an existing definition and it causes confusion.
If this is what happened, then they succeeded.
Absolutely nobody is arguing in good faith that there exists a community of people using the term “open source software” to mean something specific to them, which is different from how the OSI defines the term. This community of people, if it ever existed, certainly does not exist anymore. It’s all corporate shills trying to argue in bad faith that they are allowed to call something “open source”. If it was really a confusing problem, they would call it something else; there are enough terms available. But it’s important to them to be able to fool people that it is OSI Open Source when in fact it isn’t, so they call it “open source”.
And then we have the literal-minded people who claim that word definitions are a question of dictionaries, historical precedent or etymology. These people are helping absolutely no-one, except the aforementioned corporations. Language is defined by current general use, and in current language, “open source software” means the OSI definition.
Probably so
> It’s all corporate shills trying to argue in bad faith that they are allowed to call something “open source”.
I've seen basically 0 evidence of this. As far as I've seen it's primarily people like me arguing that you can't lambast people for using words to mean what they mean (even if the specific combination of words has a now common second meaning), and people who naively use the term without understanding that there's a hoard of rabid programmers who insist that the phrase "open source" has been imbued with special meaning and using it otherwise is to summon the devil.
No corporate shill who has an understanding of the situation would be dumb enough to use the term and get into that fight.
> No corporate shill who has an understanding of the situation would be dumb enough to use the term and get into that fight.
These are not people who made an innocent mistake. The product owner of Defold is commenting in this very thread (without any disclaimers, I might add). They want people to believe that it is really OSI “open source”, when in fact it isn’t.
It certainly didn't help them to use the term open source here, instead of everyone discussing the game engine they're releasing completely for free to the public with no strings attached and source code attached they're discussing the meaning of the term open source and accusing them of fraud.
The engine was released for free with no strings attached - you're free to implement whatever you like using the engine.
The source code was released, with very minor strings attached.
- The OSI claims to have coined the term in 1988 https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source....
- Here is a use of the term, 7 times, and as the main object, from 1996 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
- Here is a use of the term, as a proper noun, from 1993 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...
On a separate note the OSI's original mission statement was (https://web.archive.org/web/20000408035603/http://opensource...)
> The Open Source Initiative's mission will be to own and defend the Open Source trademark, to manage the www.opensource.org resources, to develop branding programs attractive to software customers and producers, and to advance the cause of open-source software and serve the hacker community in other appropriate way
Which they since abandoned because "there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive" (and one suspects because the mark was already in use in trade of software, see the xent.com link above) https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
They have no special rights to the term open source. I wish people (including the OSI) would stop pretending otherwise. You can think that it's a good idea to use their definition without relying on falsehoods.
The phrase open source software has an extremely well-known meaning. Uses like this, which fraudulently claim to be open source software even though they fail to comply with the normal definition as used for over 20 years, is simply an exploitative fraud.
If they want to join the open source community, they would be very welcome. But trying to say that they're part of a community they're not is not okay. It's especially dangerous to the people who are not familiar with the law and might make big decisions for themselves based on falsehoods.
Today, trying to use that phrase in the way they're using it is deceptive.
But the fact is, if it was a phrase in current use, you wouldn't just have one or two examples. There would be thousands. Where are all the other mentions of Caldera's "Open Source" software?
The reality is this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc...
Can you spot where the OSI appeared? The reason they couldn't get their trademark is because they had been so successful in promoting the term.
Though, I am curious now who came out with something around 1980. Might have to dig into that one.
In the body it is used (hyphens not added)
2x: “open-source” not followed by the word code.
3x: “open-source code”.
1x: “open source code”.
Moreover it’s not just a throwaway phrase but a label they are using for their model
Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways.
They continue to be extremely interested in DOS and support our open-source technology direction
Caldera’s OEM and Channel Partners can utilize the open-source code models for DOS and Linux to create
(I love it when I can copy and paste old arguments ;))
> But the fact is, if it was a phrase in current use, you wouldn't just have one or two examples. There would be thousands. Where are all the other mentions of Caldera's "Open Source" software?
It doesn't have to be extremely popular to be in use. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't much "open source" or "source available" software. The other truth of the matter is I have finite patience for trawling through old mailing lists looking for the term open source.
> The reality is this: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+open+sourc....
As you yourself note there is a bump dating to... 1975... the truth of this is the OSI used a term already in use and made it more popular, not that they invented it.
> Can you spot where the OSI appeared? The reason they couldn't get their trademark is because they had been so successful in promoting the term.
No, it was because the term is merely descriptive. It would also be because the term was already in use if the PTO noticed that (but they often don't - and I haven't tracked down the documents to check if they did).
That's outright nonsense. Just for comparison, Linux had already been around for the better part of a decade by that point, Red Hat had incorporated in 1993, and GNU/FSF might as well have been wrapping up the tour for their fifth album. To say that there wasn't much of the stuff in 1998 is either either ignorance, delusion, or both.
Open source software projects were a bajillion years old by that point, but nobody was calling them that, what with the term not yet having been invented and all. They were (begrudgingly!) "free software" until it was decided that mozilla.org would be a thing.
Clicking on "view page source" is more akin taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower, while "open source" would be if France posted the architectural plans in the open. But just because the plans are out in the open doesn't mean that someone doesn't hold copyright to them.
There's already a word for this, "source available", and by your own words it's a great fit for this scenario.
"Open-source software" is a term, it has its meaning. Diluting it for the sake of marketing does not serve the community well.
When someone makes a blatantly false claim, we have another word for it: "fraud".
A Rose by Any Other Name May smell as sweet, but lying is still not okay. The phrase "open source software" has a meaning. If you just mean source available, say that instead.
Because then it is indeed fraud!
Otherwise it isn't.
Fraud is the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. The government does NOT try to officially define every phrase in the language, nor does it need to. That's not how it works. The issues are, (1) does there appear to be intentional deception, and (2) Would that deception result in unfair/unlawful gain or the loss of the legal right? Issue 2 is true by definition (open source software as the term is generally used always allows people to use the software for any purpose, including commercial users, and this doesn't provide that right, so by definition the victim is losing a legal right). So we're really only asking the first issue - is there intentional deception? I presume you'd argue that there's no deception. Only a court can decide that for sure, but if someone uses a phrase likely to mislead most people, that's at least getting dangerously close.
So no, a government doesn't have to define the term. But even if you think that governments have to use the term that way... well, governments do define the term "open source software" just like OSI does. Again, I'll focus on the US, but this is by no means limited to the US.
The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo of August 8, 2016 (M-16-21) "Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software" https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/me... defines the term "open source software" as follows:
"Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of “Open Source” provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of “Free Software” provided by the Free Software Foundation (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)" Notice that it can be "used by anyone" and it specifically references the OSI's definition. That memo included a mandate to release a certain amount of code as OSS - which meant the government had to define the term, and yes, they used the normal definition for it.
That OMB memo cites the US Department of Defense (DoD)'s official policy on open source software that was released in 2009: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.... - it says in 2.2.b.1.iv "Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used." So the US DoD thinks that commercial use is by definition allowed by open source licenses. This wasn't even the first government memo about open source software; they had another one in 2003.
I've been citing executive branch policies, but it's also in US law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2018 at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810... section 875 requires the DoD to participate more fully in a "pilot program for open source software", and cites the policy and definition of OMB M-16-21 ("Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software") dated August 8, 2016. Yes, that's a US law, and it by reference defines "open source software" using the OSI definition. That is, commercial use must be allowed.
So yes, the US government DOES have a definition of open source software, and it requires permission for any field of endeavor, just like OSI's definition does. It's been that way for almost 20 years.
Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer. But I've cited my sources, look them up if you have questions.
Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
Also, given that the original engine is now free as well doesn't this change actually make the license a bit more GPL like? If you modify the Defold engine you can only give it away or keep it to yourself, basically.
I still feel like the asset flipping issue is a legitimate concern though.
AFAIK there could also be some issues sending software to the AppStore if it includes GPL licensed code, but LGPL licensed binaries should be ok to include (from what I understand). Of course this is from a closed source standpoint, my clients don’t generally like to open source their projects.
Personally GPL sounds like a minefield to me so as a developer I avoid GPL licensed code if possible and much prefer BSD licensed code.
I'm sure no one uses the git Version Control System. Oh wait, that's open source software under the GPL.
Your assertions are easily proven false. Sure, a lot of organizations prefer permissive licenses, but saying no one does the GPL is absurd.
My (probably flawed) comparison is to the term "fair use". Yes, you can play all sorts of games to make those 2 words mean almost anything you want, but at the end of the day that term is defined by law, not by pedantry.
"open source" has an accepted definition, and it's damaging to society to try to undermine it.
If you think I'm exaggerating, please remember that you can probably thank open-source software for the growth of the Internet, the availability of previously restricted secure encryption and thousands of tools that you probably use to earn a living.
If I would ever release it with restrictions, I would call it "source available" or something like that.
I think as a community, we should also have a strict term for a project with source code, but too restrictive to be called open source.
From my search, "Source Available" was the best terminology, unless someone knows a better one.
Not "open source". That term has a meaning, and it's very important that meaning doesn't get diluted.
EDIT: maybe "Awesome Source" ;-)
Edit: typo
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
The GPL requires two things, mainly, if you're going to use something GPL in a closed source package.
1) Attribution. You can't just take and not comment.
2) Modifications should be made available under the same license.
this means that if you're using GPL software and including it as a shared object, then you're fine.
If you need to modify that software to make it work for you (including fixing bugs) then you need to make those elements available.
This is different than insisting that anything that touches GPL code be GPL also.
Some proprietary licenses do have provisions for this, which makes them GPL incompatible.
edit For brevity I ignored dual licensing. If you release your library under both GPL and Apache, then things are of course different.
When I base software on GPL software, then my software is distributed along with that GPL software. According to this phrase, GPL might not place restrictions on my software. Yet it does.
I think it is very much related. If my linker cannot link GPLed software because of the license of this software, then this software is restricting my linker. As per the definition of opensource.org, GPLed software is not open source.
Again,
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
GPL obligations apply in the latter case, OSI definition talks about the first case.
Further, as an example, software running on Linux is clearly different than the Linux kernel. Nobody would say that an application and the OS kernel is the same software. OSI doesn't make a distinction between library calls and kernel calls.
https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0
Even AGPL is approved. https://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
What this is about is the potential for naive copies where someone takes the codebase and tries to make essentially the exact same product with no significant changes. That would be a source of confusion and competition and not really serve anyone.
It is great to be enthusiastic about open source, but objecting to people sharing source code is rarely a good idea. I openly challenge anyone to make a functioning, useful fork of this project that would leave enough in place for this clause to apply.
You are talking about game engines and their complexities, which makes it hard to comply. There are compliant full fledged operating systems out there (I am sure you have heard of a few) that are actually "open source". So I am not sure why any company should get away with using the well known term in a misleading way.
Let's talk about the operating system angle. When I went to work at NeXT in 1993 there was a lot of GPL code in the system. By 1999 as Mac OS X approached release there was a frantic effort to remove all GPL code in favor of BSD or Apache licensed alternatives or in some cases nothing at all was favorable. If Mac OS had continued to make use of GPL code and components that could have made a big difference to the whole software development community in a strategic sense. Instead this kind of zealotry resulted in barriers. Not only do you not have the control you imagine, but your ongoing efforts to draw these lines makes everything that much more difficult and unpleasant.
A company gave away their app making tool for free, and these people are sitting in front of their keyboard talking shit about how "this is subverting the definition of 'open source'", seriously?
Also what's so evil about the clause:
> "You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine" does not meet (6).
What's so wrong about businesses trying to give back to the community while protecting themselves against the likes of Microsoft and Amazon who will naturally take the code and monetize if there's no clause that restricts anti competition?
Lastly, who the hell cares what some website called opensource.org says what open source is? This is all subjective, and from my point of view, if the source code is open, it is "open" source. There are many reasons people open source their projects, for transparency, for giving assurance to the ecosystem, etc. By trying to box the definition down to a single very narrow minded idea, you're actually hurting the growth of open source instead of helping.
Which definition of "open source" are you talking about in this case? I'm confused now.
Do you mean "Open Source" or source-available?
Plain English is important. People are lazy. People do not like non-obvious meanings. Regardless of intent, any one prompting idea that “open source” means anything other than “viewable source code” needs to reflect on the clarity of their communication and the reality they may be seen as an chest pounding elitist; which to me is not in the spirit of the idles the claim to believe.
95% of game developers will never gonna make $1M from their pet project so it's no different whatever engine code is licensed under EULA or proprietary license with different name.
> geez, what's up with all these armchair open source experts on HN? Looks like too many people on this thread thinks this is evil.
This is no different from situation when surveillance sold under names like Patriot Act.
> Lastly, who the hell cares what some website called opensource.org says what open source is? This is all subjective, and from my point of view, if the source code is open, it is "open" source.
Then we'll have amazing products like zoom call their software end2end encrypted. Oh actually it's already happen. And we also have this amazing software called Telegram which is totally encrypted except it isn't (by default). And Apple is absolutely cannot get access to your encryption key, unless you enable this shiny cloud backup option.
What an entitlement. You basically want people to be punished for giving away something for no charge, and has caused you no harm.
This is not about the money.
The source code is open, different people have different opinion about the definition of "open source".
if someone calls a pork sandwich "vegan", that's objectively false. Not the case for the concept of open source because the definition is murky and I refuse to follow some authority's definition of what open source is.
Now you’re instead claiming that the term “open source” was perfectly justified, since the definition is “murky”.
So which is it? Either the term “open source” is fitting, in which case it should not matter if they charge for it or not, or it’s only OK since they don’t charge for it.
Excluding commercial use is not helping the growth of OSS, it is falsely claiming to be OSS.
If you want to say that it is being released as "source available" no one would complain. It is the falsehoods that bring out the complaints.
Is anything less than BSD or MIT license not open source then? I am all for it, but you are publishing some of your work under GNU which mean I can't use in one of my projects without publishing the source code under GNU. Why these restrictions are acceptable but not non-commercialisation?
It seems to be more restrictive to me than the OP's license.
There is no single entity that own the word open source
>If you want to say that it is being released as "source available" no one would complain
Just like everything else, I totally understand that some will like it, some don't.
Very different from falsely claiming the release is OSI compliant or whatever the legalese is...
I think people have just figured out that "IANAL" goes without saying in any online public discussion, unless for whatever reason it happens to be in a forum where arbitrary participants are especially likely to be lawyers. This is not a commercial context where fraud would be a concern, and even if the speaker was a lawyer there is no reasonable expectation of any attorney-client relationship between random participants in a public discussion. "IANAL" flags are superfluous.
> Very different from falsely claiming the release is OSI compliant or whatever the legalese is...
The de facto accepted way to say that a license is OSI compliant is to refer to it as "open source".
Thousands good and one tiny bad thing, you get scrutinized to hell. You literally have to satisfy everybody otherwise theres gonna be a vocal minority(or majority) pointing out how wrong you are(usually due to difference in priorities). honestly, its mentally and emotionally draining to deal with these.
And its also applicable to HN community. Any time theres a tiny bit of good thing done by somebody/some company, theres always gonna be someone pointing out the bad things that someone/company did.
You either have to be full good, or just dont bother being a good guy.
I mean, why bother trying
You literally don't have to. You can just ignore some of them.
> a) You do not sell or otherwise commercialise the Work or Derivative Works as a Game Engine Product; and
The license page is very clear on this: https://defold.com/license/
* You are free to commercialise any software created using Defold * You are free to commercialise any plugin, extension or tool created for use with Defold * You are free to modify Defold and you are not required to share the changes * You are free to distribute original or modified (derivative) versions of Defold * You are given a license to any patent that covers Defold
You can sell anything you want created with or related to Defold, but not package the engine+editor and sell those.
Edit: ahh just noticed that you are(from comment history).
Just a reflection as non-native English speaker. Game Engine Product is not the same as 'Product of Game Engine'.
edit: Don’t get me wrong, this is great. But it’s not OSS.
If your company worried about someone making money off editor you can just keep this part proprietary while releasing the engine under OSS-compatible license. There is plenty of "open core" projects out there.
Such a noncommercial clause means that this does not really follow the Free Software definition and Open Source definition of "open source".
It then goes on to show the difference very clearly, and as you can see the only difference from the Apache 2.0 license is that additional clause about non-commercialisation of the engine+editor package. You are still free to sell your Defold games, sell your Defold add-ons and sell your Defold tutorials.
So it at the very least claims to be a "permissive" license. The non-commercial restrictions are not mentioned there, one has to read on.
I'm fairly sure Epic don't let people fork, modify and then sell Unreal Engine either.
* You are free to commercialise any software created using Defold * You are free to commercialise any plugin, extension or tool created for use with Defold * You are free to modify Defold and you are not required to share the changes * You are free to distribute original or modified (derivative) versions of Defold)
Not strictly open-source, but I see it as a defense mechanism in order to survive.
UPD: Okay title has been changed and it's all good now.
No other game engine in Lua is going to provide dedicated server support out of the box besides Grid.
It's all also built on the latest version of LÖVE, which gives you access to all of the software in that ecosystem, too. It's the only full fledged game engine on LÖVE that we know of.
It's less known as we don't do much advertising and have had far fewer contributors, but our focus has been consistent over the years.
Because we have fewer resources, we also work very closely with those using the software if you have any questions.
While a collection of game engines using Lua seem to be tapering off in active development, such as Polycode, Corona, and perhaps now Defold, Planimeter's Grid engine is actively used by the group for game development projects, and will continue to be supported into the future, bringing commercial support in 2021.
We hope to improve the engine to better serve the indie and hobbyist gamedev community with tools that aren't available elsewhere and if we hear about any projects one would like to showcase, we'd be happy to feature them!
I'll keep your feedback in mind since I hope to improve the marketing collateral.
I'm curious about how well tilemaps scale in your engine when it comes to huge maps.
Planimeter uses the tech for its MMO flagship project.