Consider the space we're in. For game development you're going to have a lot of developers with a lot of different ideas about how to make a game, all utilizing the same engine. If the engine doesn't come with a feature I need, I'll probably have to code it myself, but seeing as the whole purpose of me making this feature is for my game, then it makes sense that I should be able to keep my game's feature private/proprietary without the need to push that feature back to engine which might not even want my feature to begin with. This is why GPL is not a good choice for game engines.
GPL doesn't require you to push a feature/change/etc back to the engine devs, it only requires you to make it available to others. You can just keep your changes in a ZIP file alongside your game's data - which is what a bunch of games built on the GPL releases of id Tech already do.
> Game dev at the top tiers is an arms race. Being able to do proprietary things is attractive to big players.
Yeah, so I don't see how helping out the big players and not everyone else is a good thing.
>Multiple projects have gone closed-source from open source. Assurances are a nice thing to have (but certainly no guarantee).
Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever. So it is guaranteed whereas "some assurances" mean nothing.
> Yeah, so I don't see how helping out the big players and not everyone else is a good thing.
If you want your stuff to be private, you have a legal option.
> Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever. So it is guaranteed whereas "some assurances" mean nothing.
> Yeah but the open source ones ARE guaranteed. Even if they later become closed source, the code up till that point will remain open source forever.
The changes from the Apache 2.0 license are sufficiently minimal that you can _still_ fork it from that point, you just (a) won't be able to use the trademark (b) won't be able to sell it.
Given the clearly stated goals of the foundation and hence the project, that seems to be providing exactly the guarantees they intend to provide, and while your point about assurances is entirely fair, I think you're underestimating the level of legal guarantees that you do get here.
>> You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL).
> Why is that a good thing?
Instead of writing an internal project from scratch, you modify an existing project and tightly couple it with your internal process. What's wrong with that?
text-wrap: pretty tells the browser to wrap the text so as to make it look pretty. But the CSS standard doesn't specify what exactly that means; it's up to each individual browser to decide what algorithm yields the prettiest results.
Chromium is the only browser engine whose stable channel currently supports text-wrap: pretty. In this post, WebKit is announcing not only that they've implemented it (though not yet in a stable channel), but that they've done so using an algorithm that's better than Chromium's. Their algorithm adjusts for various things that Chromium's currently does not.
The WebKit implementation is the only one that can handle many pages of text with no noticeable performance hit, while Chrome and Firefox are limited to only dealing with the last 4 or 6 lines of a paragraph.
Yeah, corporations have the resources to do that kind of investment in Linux which random hobbiests don't.
But why do they do it in the first place, instead of investing in their own obviously supiriour massively invested in OS's? Because Linux IS better, and the whole idea of it is better than some closed source crap. By nature of the GPL license it will snowball and everyone else will be left behind.
It's very easy to hate on him for that very reason. He's just buying a good reputation for the fraction of his wealth that is completely insignificant.
If I could buy that kind of reputation by tossing a few coins into the void, why not? Especially after I've stolen billions from others.
As a non-American this is a horrendous idea. People need to accept that assholes and misinformation exist. And you will encounter it in real life and on the internet. You can't expect a nanny state to protect you from every slight discomfort you experience. Learn how to deal with it.
As sibling comments have correctly guessed, I was only responding to the "non-usable" part of the parent comment. But yeah, replace slack with IRC, email, or whatever you were using at work back in the day.
> You're complaining that a product is offering you something, and you don't like the offer?
No, the complaint is about the "offering" in the first place. People don't want your shit forced in front of them. The fact that you are incapable of realizing this on your own is hilarious.
Nothing is being forced on you. Just don't buy the product. We're not talking about your church or your kids school, it's a website you can choose not to visit
Person surfing the web, clicks on link, ads blasted in face. (Just don't visit this random URL, nothing is forced on you!)
Person drives on road, billboards blast ads in face. (Just don't drive on this road, nothing is forced on you!)
Oh, and if you are going to argue that a website is not a public space like a road, then why the hell are you making it publicly accessible? Just lock that shit down behind a login if you are so private about it.
Why is that a good thing?
>You can freely monetize games built with the engine,
You'd also be able to do the same if it had a GPL license
>and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch.
If it was licensed under a GPL license you wouldn't need to rely on "some assurances"
reply