Flax Engine 1.1 Released For This Impressive Open-Source 3D Game Engine

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Flax Engine 1.1 Released For This Impressive Open-Source 3D Game Engine

While Godot receives much of the - well deserved - attention when it comes to open-source, cross-platform game engines, another deserving contender is the Flax Engine that just reached v1.0 last year after going public in 2018...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Flax-Engine-1.1.6217

[d3coder]

It's not open source, it's source available

[uxmkt]

It's not open source, it's source available

The source is open to the public, the development (what happens on github, anyway) is open to the public, and if you submit a patch, I'll assume the developers are also open to accept it. The one thing this open project isn't, is free (libre) software.

[d3coder]

The source is open to the public, the development (what happens on github, anyway) is open to the public, and if you submit a patch, I'll assume the developers are also open to accept it. The one thing this open project isn't, is free (libre) software.

You can read definition of Open Source here

https://opensource.org/osd

[skeevy420]

The source is open to the public, the development (what happens on github, anyway) is open to the public, and if you submit a patch, I'll assume the developers are also open to accept it. The one thing this open project isn't, is free (libre) software.

Read their EULA. They can relicense their code as closed source and you only have a 30 day warning. That's why GPL and LGPL are forbidden to be used outside of LGPL linking. There are also closed source components for things like PS4 support that aren't released publicly. You also agree to give up company logos, game assets, etc for them to use to promote the engine.

This is "Open Source*", not Open Source.

If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, do not click on the "I Agree" button and do not download or use the Application.

I suppose that, technically speaking, we could git clone their repo to get around their EULA. Due to them being inconsistent with commas in the EULA I'm gonna read that as all one function. Other sections of their EULA have every single action itemized with commas and up there they have the clicking of the button tied to all the rest of it. If you get the software by other means then that's on them for having a poorly worded out EULA.

[birdie]

It's not open source, it's source available

The fact that it's not using your favourite license does not mean it's become proprietary or it's distributed as binaries.

God, some radical open source fanatics are just that, radical fanatics.

[birdie]

You can read definition of Open Source here
https://opensource.org/osd

I have a nice cozy website https://common-sense-and-english-language-101.org where "open source" means just that: software for which the source code is available. Amazing! Now, let's argue which one of these websites is more relevant.

[birdie]

Lastly many people consider GPL, specially its third version, to be not "free". It's Open Source, but it's not free. Amazing!

https://dev.to/matteojoliveau/gnu-pu...ver-use-it-3fk
https://noordering.wordpress.com/200...l-is-not-free/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17231299

Lastly .... drums ... https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl

[WorBlux]

The fact that it's not using your favourite license does not mean it's become proprietary or it's distributed as binaries.

God, some radical open source fanatics are just that, radical fanatics.

But in the actual case of Flax, the EULA is proprietary.

To paraphrase: No public forks without permission (or any other redistribution of source format), a scheduale of royalties, an class action waiver, and IP assignment to flax of all "feedback"

https://flaxengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Flax%20EULA.pdf

[60Hz]

The fact that it's not using your favourite license does not mean it's become proprietary or it's distributed as binaries.

God, some radical open source fanatics are just that, radical fanatics.

I have a nice cozy website https://common-sense-and-english-language-101.org where "open source" means just that: software for which the source code is available. Amazing! Now, let's argue which one of these websites is more relevant.

Lastly many people consider GPL, specially its third version, to be not "free". It's Open Source, but it's not free. Amazing!

Good heavens you're a moron. Can someone ban this fool again, ASAP...?