Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Huh, id Tech 5 Engine To Be Open-Source?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    It's not in fact very hard. The engine is id's, so they own the copyright, so they can licence it both under an open-source license, and a normal license.
    I was thinking of it more in terms of reconciling the attitude. Obviously id can multi-license as long as they're not depending on unsuitably-licensed third-party code (and I know Carmack has specifically said that he sought to avoid anything that would prevent it being open-sourced somewhere down the road), but the framing of the statements suggests a strongly proprietary kind of mindset that doesn't seem to fit with an open-source release.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well unreal engine must be full of 3rd party code. Id software prefered to write all parts on their own - therefore they can opensource it. But i see no reason to release the code at launchen when they don't want to licence it to others which they stated before. Maybe they changed their mind and want to attract more studios now - as they already lost many to Unreal engine in the last years. Would be certainly an impressive come back - no idea what Unigine will do then - from point of marketing an id logo on the cover would certainly sell better...

      Comment


      • #18
        Looks like they removed the vital "open-source" part.
        Doesn't come that unexpected.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
          It absolutely definitely beyond any doubt will be NOT Open Source in terms of the OSI definition.
          It could be open-source in the literal meaning. It's not "Free Software" as per FSF's definition, but the source is none the less available. Perhaps even giving freedom to non-commercial usage. MAME is already distributed under such a license (source code is available, but only for non-commercial applications. Commercial uses are prohibited and require special licensing).

          If id does it, it would be a smart move for them because :
          • requiring paid license from big developers wanting to create commercial games don't cut id its main profit source.
          • at the same time, making it freely available (source included) for non-commercial games will increase its mind share among homebrew project, attract more hobbyist developers, increasing the general "know-how", and thus increasing the overall value of the engine (it will be something that more people know to use. So if you're a big studio starting a new project, id Tech 5 is a good bet because lots of people already use it and have the necessary know-how. Thus more sold license for the "commercial" version). Exactly the same effect as that sought by EPIC after releasing free dev-tools and making the engine available at no cost in some specific situations.
          • also making it open to homebrew increase the chance of it being used in some project, which could be commercialized at some later point in time (think Team Fortress, and the likes) and id could profit from attracting developers to its platform (you want to write your cool game ? Here take this source, it's free for small fishes like you. Oh, your game is *really* that cool and generate a big *buzz* ? Hey, let us help you polish it and sell it !)
          • and overall by making it "more free" (i.e.: source available too) as the concurrence (Source, Unity3D, Unreal, etc. which mainly makes the engine and dev-tools available at low or no cost). Thus attracting more from the highly valuable creative brains in the open-source friendly world. (Hey, look at us ! We're cooler than Epic and Valve : we give source-code too !)
          • also, down the line, the transition to GPL will be smoother.

          From a marketing point of view, it might indeed make sense to open the access to the source to more people.
          It requires someone with the vision and understanding of the free/libre opensource software, and with the balls to attempt it. (id certainly have all of this)
          It also requires owning all their own technology and not requiring external middle war (and Cramack has insisted on relying on as few 3rd party non-free elements as possible).

          So it could be all possible, for a limited definition of "open source".

          Comment


          • #20
            I think this was just a mistake.

            ID typically open-sources their engines 5 years later.

            It's id Tech4's turn, not Tech5.

            Comment


            • #21
              It would be a big step for linux

              The driver developers of the free driver would have a new toy to play with. They only support randomly some propriatary tools but they benchmark and have the main focus on supporting the free software that works on linux.

              Linux as gaming plattform could get a very strong boost, I dont think propretary games will gain much from that because the games we have today with quake3-engine or even q2-engine-ports (Nexuiz), are not that ugly yet. Ok maybe I dream a bit to much with something like that and even idtech4 will be a nice step soon, but it would be great and a big step that would give linux much attention and also id soft and this engine. Idsoft and the free/open software community could benefit much from such a step.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DrYak View Post
                It could be open-source in the literal meaning.

                <-snip->

                So it could be all possible, for a limited definition of "open source".
                It is definitely possible and it would be more true to the original definition of what open source was before open source became a battle of licenses. Simply open for all to see and modify for their own personal use.

                Comment


                • #23
                  No. That is Microsoft's "Shared source".

                  Do you have the definition (which you refer to) of what "open source" meant before the Open Source Initiative came up with the definition that everybody has been using for the last decade?

                  You're running a bit of a crusade against free and open source software around here. It's a bit odd, given that it's a site dedicated to exactly this kind of software.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    No. That is Microsoft's "Shared source".

                    Do you have the definition (which you refer to) of what "open source" meant before the Open Source Initiative came up with the definition that everybody has been using for the last decade?

                    You're running a bit of a crusade against free and open source software around here. It's a bit odd, given that it's a site dedicated to exactly this kind of software.
                    Before open source became a bunch of licenses the term was used by the literal meaning. People didn't even fathom the idea of actually making money off of software. The idea was just as preposterous as charging for air back then.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      BTW they changed it now:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        Before open source became a bunch of licenses the term was used by the literal meaning. People didn't even fathom the idea of actually making money off of software. The idea was just as preposterous as charging for air back then.
                        Do you have a source for the term "open source" used back in that time.

                        You are right that source was freely shared, but was there a "definition" of "open source"?

                        The first such definition I'm aware of was when Perens and ESR coined it in order to essentially distance themselves from the FSF, which some people found not business-friendly enough, and the term "Free software", a name with well known problems

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          Do you have a source for the term "open source" used back in that time.

                          You are right that source was freely shared, but was there a "definition" of "open source"?

                          The first such definition I'm aware of was when Perens and ESR coined it in order to essentially distance themselves from the FSF, which some people found not business-friendly enough, and the term "Free software", a name with well known problems
                          It wasn't defined other then it's literal meaning:

                          open: Affording unobstructed entrance and exit; not shut or closed

                          source: such as a person or document, that supplies information

                          It is much like how the term "free software" was somehow twisted into FSF terms.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            It wouldn't shock me if they did this. It would be what I consider the ideal future model for gaming development, open source engine, pay for the game assets.
                            Now wouldn't that be awesome? One of the game developers here on [Phoronix] said that the most valuable and expensive asset these days is actually the game artwork, so this model/strategy would make a lot of sense if he's right.
                            I really love the idea and I just keep pouncing on every game doing this - I even bought 2 copies of Penumbra: Overture (1st was a part of The Humble Indie Bundle and 2nd came with the rest of the series) and I don't regret a single cent I have spent on that.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It's a shame. That nearly made me press the pre-order button.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It was a marketing ploy to increase page views and pre-orders from the Phoronix readership.

                                Has anyone mentioned whether Bethesda was using this engine for TES5?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X