As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code.
You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
> As a game developer, you're hurting our entire industry by shutting us out of using your software. And in the end, we'll find a way, with or without you. We'd rather stand with you, but we can't go near GPL'd code.
Poor you. The game industry _chooses_ not to go near GPL'd code because they want to sell proprietary software. Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place.
Yes, the free software movement is supposed to be detrimental to the developers of proprietary software and has no incentive to cater to their needs. Do you think we want to make Windows or iOS a more attractive platform? Or to build components to be used to improve proprietary engines instead of helping free ones because hey, the proprietary devs may send a bugfix our way? No.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason. I chose MIT to interoperate with other free software; if it wasn't for that I would have chosen the GPL or the LGPL.
> hurting our entire industry
I think the entire software industry is _helped_ if I drive it towards free software. I don't care how many billions the next Call of Duty game will make. I care if local developers in my country can get a consulting gig because the system my government uses is open source and so they have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major foreign company and get locked-in to it.
> (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)
Weak argument. Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point.
Firstly, I want to be clear that I responded specifically to the idea that "MIT license == somehow bad". Releasing code under GPL is not in any way a bad thing, and I'm not arguing against the GPL. People can do whatever they want, and there are a lot of solid reasons to prefer the GPL. My purpose here is to stick up for fellow gamedevs, because it's absurd to believe that we're not interested in contributing to open source just because we prefer the MIT license. I could name several gamedevs off the top of my head who have contributed in a big way to open source software. Interestingly, they all tend to use MIT licenses.
Back then would you say "system programmers are not going to ragequit the industry just because operating systems are closed source". But instead, they wrote open operating systems. Follow their example. Write a free engine. That's the entire point.
The gamedev industry isn't like other industries. You can't spend a decade writing an engine. You therefore need talent in order to write a competitive non-toy engine. This means you must work in the game industry for a period of time to get that talent. You also need to be brought up steeped in the sort of culture that makes you mentally inclined to open source your years of hard work rather than keeping it closed and proprietary. That's why it's a mistake to villify the MIT license -- you're cutting off an entire generation of programmers from open source culture. Specifically, the generation of programmers who want to be game developers. The reason is because they are going to be working in the gamedev industry, and hence the MIT license is going to be their only option to participate in open source culture. Villifying them will drive them away, and future talent will write proprietary closed-source engines as a result rather than free and open source ones.
In summary, villifying the MIT license is directly counterproductive to your philosophical goal of seeing less proprietary software.
Why are you conflating two different industries? If you are going to question the validity of his point, actually do that instead of throwing in a red herring. The software of your government is nowhere near the same as video games.
In fact, I would say the video game industry is somewhat unique in the case of software dev, as it is not generally a "life improver". Video games are not tools that would improve the world if everyone had free access to them. In fact, most big games being proprietary (and not free) is probably a blessing for the productivity of the entire human race.
I personally don't want most of my multiplayer games to be open source (you used the example of Call of Duty), because when the client is open source it is much easier to cheat (and build your own "cheat client")
Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place.
Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason.
Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially...
...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major...
...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.
Why would I want to give free labor to massively wealthy AAA studios who don't want to give back anything? If they want to use my code in their proprietary products, they can pay me to license it, just like they expect others to pay them. I don't see how it's "standing with me" to use my code to make the next Madden, without giving back either code or cash.
By this logic why would anyone contribute to the OSS of large corporations like Oracle or Facebook? I'm also a game developer and was able to open source a chunk of AI software to the development community which has been used in commercial games but also many education and personal projects. That would not be possible without licenses like MIT.
If you wrote the software you can do whatever you want with it, including releasing it under the GPL.
Nope. Gamedevs are covered under both non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. There's a lot of red tape to cut through to release something as open source. Even if you've written it at home on your own time, companies have made a big deal about employees open-sourcing code before.
This is doubly true in the finance industry.
Without MIT licensing, there would be an extra hurdle of "GPL? We cannot under any circumstances be associated with GPL." It's absolutely silly, but absolutely true. I'm speaking as someone with firsthand, I've-been-there-in-person-and-dealt-with-this experience.
Also, by releasing it as GPL, no other gamedevs can use it. We gamedevs like to release code that other gamedevs can use.
That doesn't sound like a GPL problem, it sounds like an industry problem. As a game developer I'd rather complain with the industry and try to follow an ethical path (i.e. freedom with GPL) rather than complain to those people who release their hard work for free under the GPL. I admire those people.
Some game developers have been able to contribute software using LGPL to get around the restrictions of both corporate legal departments and the confidentiality agreements you have to make with Sony, Microsoft and so on. Electronic Arts for example made a port of Webkit which can run Playstation and Xbox, which is a linkable library and includes no reference to third party API's.
Personally I choose a license relevant for the kind of software and what it will be used for. When that includes software I want people to be able to use in commercial software I use MIT. I'm still releasing hard work for free, I don't have your admiration, but people get to use it.
Facebook uses the PHP license for HHVM which is a very significant OSS contribution, and has very similar terms to MIT.
Like people said, that you have a non-disclosure agreement has nothing to do with the GPL. My point was that no matter what other things you do with the software, including using it for a commercial game, you can also release it as GPL.
Other gamedevs absolutely can use it. The only thing they can't do is include it in a shipping product. Light Table appears to be an IDE, and there is no problem using a GPL IDE for writing a commercial product any more than there is a problem compiling it with GCC.
Yup. Personally, as an indie developer who is certainly not massively wealthy, I've submitted a PR to GLFW (my windowing/input system) to support Retina screens on OS X. Of my other open-source dependencies (boost, vorbisfile, logog, physfs, and GLEW), there's just nothing I've needed to patch. Otherwise I would've.
There's nothing under GPL/LGPL I need or particularly want, but I do benefit from BSD-based stuff if only because I can't statically link LGPL stuff and I find the GPL unethical. Of course I'll give back where I change stuff, because I'm not an asshole. But GPL/LGPL ignores reality in too many ways to be viable; I personally like the CDDL quite a bit but nobody uses it.
I'm not a game developer; that industry is welcome to continue on without me, they have done great so far.
The fact that some code is licensed with the GPL is in no way detrimental to anybody. If the person who had written the GPL code had instead made the code completely closed source, "game programmers" would have been in a situation that would can only be the same, or worse. They would still have to write their own code, and wouldn't have even the choice of building upon the free software and making it free to everyone else.
Open source developers are under no obligation to do your work for you, or to make your life easier. That some choose to do so is fantastic. To expect everyone to give away their code with no form of compensation is silly (even if that compensation is simply paying it forward).
And there's always the third option... pay someone for an alternate license to the code. Do you really dig Lighttable, and want to incorporate it in your closed source videogame? Pay the developer enough money that he'll license it to you without any of the GPL clauses.
You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I think the GPL is great.
I also think the MIT license is great, or at the very least that people who use it shouldn't be vilified. As I mentioned elsewhere, vilifying the MIT license is counterproductive to our mutual goal of seeing less proprietary software. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7026368
As a game player, you're hurting an entire customer base by shutting us out of modifying your software. The primary goal of the GPL is to allow end users the freedom to fully utilize the software that they use, including the ability to extend as they see fit, not for developers to collaborate with each other.
Talk about entitlement. People choose the GPL because they don't want their code used in proprietary software. We don't want to help the proprietary game development industry. We care about user freedom, not programmer freedom.
Yes. Those are old engines, not current-gen tech. They make money off current-gen tech until open-sourcing it makes more sense to them from a financial perspective. This is distinctly different from what CodeCombat has done, which is to open-source their current-gen tech. There aren't going to be any financial consequences (or any other kind), because it's a good idea and there's no reason not to open source. I'm just saying they're the first non-indie Gamedev company to do so (as far as I know) and they deserve all the credit for it.
They only open-sourced them once their value to Id was approximately zero.
It's still a really cool thing to do, but neither Id (or any other game company I'm aware of, anywhere, ever), has released their game as GPL while they were still making significant amounts of money from it (which in practice means within the first couple of months, for almost all games).
I think that game industry's reliance on the proprietary model is somewhat odd because they could do a really nice code is open source, but the art assets, sounds, etc. are licensed. Let people have and modify the engine, and if they purchased the game, they're free to add or do whatever, but no one can take your assets and resell them legally.
You know CodeCombat recently open sourced their game? They're basically the first gamedev company in the history of gamedev to do that -- a non-indie company who open sourced their current-gen tech. It's a good idea, and I hope more companies follow. So, times are changing, but in the meantime your strict adherence to "GPL license == good guys; MIT license == bad guys" is detrimental to pretty much an entire community of programmers. (Programmers with zero options; they're not going to ragequit the gamedev industry just because engines are closed source.)