quote:
Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are open sourced code

Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are ancient open sourced code without value. That''s why it''s released as open source. Why do you think Quake III is not released as open source? Because it''s state-of-the-art game technology and worth WAY to much money for id Software to release to the public. They make lots of money selling licenses for the engine.

Open Source != Free, although alike in similar ways, open source can be used and you can still make a profit.

Now, as for "the technology is the advantage", well, who said you need to OS the entire thing? You can just OS your sound or networking, etc. and keep your graphics technology wrapped up. Im sure no business really cares if they OS the network programming files, most code like that is almost exactly the same anyway...

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

"most code like that is almost exactly the same anyway..."

Then why bother opensourcing that anyway? And on the topic OpenSource != Free, I have only one thing to say. If people have access to the code, do you REALLY think they will pay for using it, if we are talking about licensing? Do you REALLY believe people are that pure in their hearts? Come on. If you have a powerful engine (graphic, AI, networking, whatever) and plan on earning money from licenses, you will dig your own grave by opensourcing it.

(NOTE! Still talking about the game industry)

quote: Original post by Lord Chaos

Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are open sourced code

Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are ancient open sourced code without value.

Without commercial value, you mean. What about educational value?
It''s obvious I can''t just alter the source and release a game with those old engines, but at least I''d have them to learn and save some time designing my own


Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-

Read my posts again. I''ve been talking about commercial value all along.

But yes, the educational value might still be pretty high, at least for poeple with little/no experince in the game industry. But my point was that those games were not opensources until they were completely and utterly useless to the company in any economic sense. Then they release the source, and gain some PR value to help boost the company profile and maybe sell more copies of their new titles.

I'm a big fat smelly troll and no one likes me.

Edited by - Godfree^ on September 14, 2000 6:14:37 AM

Oki... we;ve got some good issues being raised here...

would anyone object to me using some of the opinions here in my book? (I''m doing a chapter on licensing). If you have objections please let me know my email...

Back to the thread...

The question about OpenSource being free has been raised. Has anyone ever heard the phrase "free as in liberty, not as in beer"?

This means that the code is free in the sense of freedom of speech, but not zero-value. One of the best examples of this is POVray. While it is OpenSource (you get the source, you can redistribute derivitives as long as you allow access to the original source), it has a cash value assigned to it if anyone wants to "change" the original license (i.e. use the source in a closed proprietry system).

Also, there is nothing stopping you from charging people to get GPLed software. (You really think it costs $x to put RedHat on a CD?). The GPL license applies to USAGE, not distribution, as do most license agreements. Another little known fact about the GPL is that you only need to release modifications of the source under the GPL if you want to release the binaries. The GPL restricts linking with non-GPL software. However, there is nothing stoppping you linking against non-GPL software if you plan to use the program internally, without releasing it.

http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk

"Nazrix is cool" Nazrix first, then Darkmage, then Nazrix again

quote:
it has a cash value assigned to it if anyone wants to "change" the original license (i.e. use the source in a closed proprietry system).

Again, I don''t think this applies in the same way to games, really. The real value of the code is in many cases in the algortihms they implement. If the UT engine was to be released as Open Source and you had to pay to use it in any commercial products, nobody in the right mind would pay for it, since most people that would find it useful has the knowledge to extract the ideas and technology from it and write their own -> the company behind the original engine would lose their advantage.

And on the topic "to charge people for GPLed software". First of all, it''s an option. Anyone who wants can get it for free and your company gets nothing. Second, don''t compare games to distributions. You don''t need support/manuals/documents/whatever to play a game, as (most people) need to setup a Linux system.

quote: Original post by Lord Chaos

And on the topic "to charge people for GPLed software". First of all, it''s an option. Anyone who wants can get it for free and your company gets nothing. Second, don''t compare games to distributions. You don''t need support/manuals/documents/whatever to play a game, as (most people) need to setup a Linux system.

If you are offering a commercial game, you need to to support it, offer manuals and documentation etc etc.


http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk

"Nazrix is cool" Nazrix first, then Darkmage, then Nazrix again

Yes, but what I meant was that 99% of the people that (supposedly) buy the game don''t need the support and the manuals, and in the distribution case a lot of people actually DO need it. That''s the diffrence, and that''s one of the reasons you can''t really compare games with any other application when it concerns opensourcing.