Quote: Original post by grazer
Maybe you should reread the post you responded to.

I responded to one argument specifically.

Quote: Original post by grazer
The reason people don't sell copies of copyrighted software on the street is because it is *illegal*, not because they don't have access to the source.

Yes, and the discussion led to "what if it was legal".

Quote: Original post by grazer
An example: The last 2 (about to be 3) versions of quake have been open-sourced, but the games *data* is copyrighted, so you can't just compile and sell your own version.

They open source obsolete technology that they have no use for.

Quote: Original post by nuvem

Quote: Original post by GBGames
So being commercial software does not mean that it cannot be open source or free software.

Umm, but then you're not selling software... you're selling bandwidth, or warranties, or whatever other medium you use to provide the software.

What do you mean? The GPL says I can charge as much as I want for the act of distributing the program, and the GPL does not cover how much I charge for the data that is not under the GPL. Yes, if you distribute the source after the binary, you must do so at the cost of distribution, but the original cost I charge isn't limited by the license.

If I want to offer a warranty, I can charge for that too. If I want to charge for bandwidth, I can do that too. If I want to charge fo the cost of the CD it is distributed on, etc.

Once again, "commercial software" and "FOSS" are not mutually exclusive. Commercial doesn't mean it must be closed or proprietary.

Quote: Original post by GBGames
If I was arguing that the GPL works in all cases, I would be wrong and your argument would show it.

And I'm not arguing that GPL doesn't work in all cases. I'm arguing against the idiotic Stallman philosophy.

Quote: Original post by alexmoura

Note that in any case, you're not making money out of the sale of the Software, but of other stuff - like art or services.

Thank you. No one makes money because they used the Quake 3 engine. They make money because they made a game to make use of that engine.

Also, one service you can provide is the bundling of the binary with the data in a nice package, along with installer. Most people will not pay you money if you give them the code and the data as separate zip files.

Also, not everyone cares about the source code. 80% of your customers probably won't care that it is available. How many people who play Quake 3 or Half-Life actually make mods for it? Did the modding community all of a sudden get a spike in numbers when Quake 2 was GPLed? No. Did thousands of stores start selling "legalized pirated" versions of the game? No.

So let's recap:
- commercial vs open source is a false battle.
- the GPL doesn't prevent you from making income from game development.

Yann,

Sorry, I got lost in the 8 pages of garbage here. Is this project still in developement?

Sorry, but Id software makes a lot of money by having some of the more sofisticated graphics engines, most people have been complaining that the level designs are actually the downside of it - allowing others to use their graphics engine for free would mean added competition for them and lower retail prices for the full package, not to mention that they'd be hard pressed to license their engine for the values they have been selling it for - I do believe they would indeed lose money if they gpl'd the logic part of the game as it was put out for sale, which the reason why they wait until the game engine is a generation or two behind the commercial versions before doing so.

In the end, you're giving work away for free - loss leader models will work, but for a packaged software model, where you intend to make money for the sale of each item, you'll make more money with the closed model that with the open one.

Could we please move the open-source vs closed-source discussion out of this thread?

I, as many others, check here often for news about Yann's IDE.

Yes, I for one welcome this new closed source anjuta clone.

Yann --

Somebody brought up an interesting point with me today...will the IDE allow distributed compiling, and how will that work?

Quote: Original post by alexmoura
Long after the games had been on sale, and had made most of the revenue they were going to anyway :)

Note that in any case, you're not making money out of the sale of the Software, but of other stuff - like art or services.

I can see a game like WoW potentially being open sourced, assuming all logic is controlled from the server side to avoid hacking, since the fact it requires a server connection will still allow the developer to charge for the game, tho.

It wouldn't benefit, just like every other online game before it they still blast way, way too much data to the client and trust the client way too much.