Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flax Engine 1.2 Brings Many Big Improvements For This Open-Source Commercial Game Engine

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

  • #11
    In all honesty, this is a fairly transparent business model. They clearly state WHEN the source is available for free and WHEN you potentially have to pay on their licensing page. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that they aren't following the open source model slavicly. The open source model is just one of several models, doesn't mean it's the only model we should accept. This whole idea of either/or is a very black and white mindset that isn't practical in today's society.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by nado View Post
      In all honesty, this is a fairly transparent business model. They clearly state WHEN the source is available for free and WHEN you potentially have to pay on their licensing page. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that they aren't following the open source model slavicly. The open source model is just one of several models, doesn't mean it's the only model we should accept. This whole idea of either/or is a very black and white mindset that isn't practical in today's society.
      Flax Engine – multi-platform 3D game engine. Contribute to FlaxEngine/FlaxEngine development by creating an account on GitHub.




      Except this is really this is not open source.

      Do notice that the source code in a lot of ways breaks github terms of service due to the license file in the source not in fact containing the license. Yes the mandatory license file on github is meant to contain the software license when the repository is public not a link to where to find out about the license this is part of the terms of service of github. So by this the EULA of Flax Engine to be following github terms of service should be in the LICENSE.md.

      This is worse than it first appears. The fact the license is not in fact in the git repository but just referenced this means that Flax can change that license at any time. Lets say they wanted to change to 10% instead 4 they could just update the website. Lets say that wanted to change the EULA again they can just change it.

      The reason why a open source item has its license in the source code repository is simple so that when you change license you have to change the repository.,

      Please note how you are allowed to distribute modified source is in fact very restricted. That you will use the store or a github fork allows easy DCMA takedown.

      Please note nado open source project have been converted to closed source in the past. Key point here due to license being include in those projects people who had personal forks could keep on using them under the old license and go forwards. Due to this not include its license in the source Flaxengine can change license at any time and basically Thanos snap by DCMA all the repositories out of existence.

      3. Modifications to Application
      Flax reserves the right to modify, suspend or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the
      Application or any service to which it connects, with or without notice and without liability to you.
      This is in the EULA maybe people don't read any more. That discontinue there is the right there does include lets say that they decide to discontinue development flaxengine and part of discontinue decide closing all public repositories with DCMA . Yes they have done nothing wrong and they don't owe you can compensation.

      The Flax Engine license is truly a shared source license where the vendor has reserved the right to terminate it out from under you and leave you no way to continue forwards.

      This is something that looks like open source but really is not. This is really no different to signing the up for the Microsoft shared source program.


      You would not call Microsoft Windows open source right. I remember when Microsoft Thanos snapped the Xen Para-virtualisation drivers for windows out of existence because it was based on a publicly open for academic use at the time windows source code repository that was shared source that Microsoft decide they were going to close.

      Yes nado there are many models to open source. But there is a model called shared source that looks very close to open source the problem the difference in the license means the party who hold the first license on shared source can cease it distribution and if they decide to there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

      There is a valid term for what Flax Engine is that is shared source. The valid shared source term give the end user warning the terms of the source code do not give you the open right to continue development.

      Its not really open source if you cannot legally be sure continue development without more of the authors consent.

      Yes the restriction that repositories must be a github fork means countries that for some reason cannot access github are not allowed to share their source code modifications either. And what happens if Microsoft decides to rename or heaven forbid shutdown github. Flax Engine has a single point of failure in the source access and I do not believe this has been done by mistake.

      This single point means makers of Flax Engine can still keep on attempting to find a buyer for closed source version with the promise when they have enough user base they have have enough trapped customers so that a closed source version can be sold at horrible prices and all open source access can be removed so forcing all the users of Flax engine though the closed source version.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
        "Open-source but commercial".

        An example of a bad license (a very restrictive one).
        You Github bit was bad but not for the reason you thought and its in the license.

        Originally posted by fwyzard View Post
        The same comment would hold for any method of distributing the source code. How would they know or prevent it from being re-uploaded anywhere ?
        Why do you single out GitHub as being the problem ?

        Any public Distribution (i.e., intended for Engine Licensees generally) which includes Engine Tools(including as modified by you under the License) must take place either through the Store (e.g., for distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Flax’s GitHub Network (e.g., for distributing source code).

        Fork of the GitHub Network means you have to run a github instance to public distribute. You cannot run a gitlab one other wise you are not forking the github network. This is very different to saying forking Flax's git repository. Yes technically re-uploading on to a non github would be something that they could do a DCMA take-down over because you don't have a license to-do that.

        Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
        The source access is also still great for digital preservation compared to completely closed source products like Unity3D.
        Unity C# reference source code. Contribute to Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference development by creating an account on GitHub.


        Your statement here is not true. Unity3D there is a public repository on github with the source code in it. You are not allowed to modify Unity3D source at all. Yes you are legally allowed to mirror that source for reference reasons. Please note just mirror it as a read only git repo.

        The way Unity3D reference is license it cannot be just finger snapped out of existence.

        This is the problem having source code access alone does not mean much. Like Unity3D you can access the source code and host it where ever you like as long as you don't modify it or use it.

        Flax engine. They have restricted when you can host it. Flax engine has also put in the terms that they can terminate the license any time they want so basically can finger snap repositories out of existence in future using the DCMA as in the third party repositories is no longer licensed content.

        The reality here is what Unity3D done with their source code would have been good digital preservation if we had not had https://legalvision.com.au/copyright-term-extensions/ The Disney push on extending copyrights. If copyright ever stops being extended then what Unity3D has done will be useful to someone for digital preservation a long time in the future. The Flax Engine on the other hand the source code may disappear due to legal means so may not be around when copyright expires for digital preservation heck might not be around next month if someone takes over the company and wants to close it.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

          https://github.com/FlaxEngine/FlaxEn...222/LICENSE.md

          https://flaxengine.com/wp-content/up...lax%20EULA.pdf

          Except this is really this is not open source.

          Do notice that the source code in a lot of ways breaks github terms of service due to the license file in the source not in fact containing the license. Yes the mandatory license file on github is meant to contain the software license when the repository is public not a link to where to find out about the license this is part of the terms of service of github. So by this the EULA of Flax Engine to be following github terms of service should be in the LICENSE.md.

          This is worse than it first appears. The fact the license is not in fact in the git repository but just referenced this means that Flax can change that license at any time. Lets say they wanted to change to 10% instead 4 they could just update the website. Lets say that wanted to change the EULA again they can just change it.

          The reason why a open source item has its license in the source code repository is simple so that when you change license you have to change the repository.,

          Please note how you are allowed to distribute modified source is in fact very restricted. That you will use the store or a github fork allows easy DCMA takedown.

          Please note nado open source project have been converted to closed source in the past. Key point here due to license being include in those projects people who had personal forks could keep on using them under the old license and go forwards. Due to this not include its license in the source Flaxengine can change license at any time and basically Thanos snap by DCMA all the repositories out of existence.


          This is in the EULA maybe people don't read any more. That discontinue there is the right there does include lets say that they decide to discontinue development flaxengine and part of discontinue decide closing all public repositories with DCMA . Yes they have done nothing wrong and they don't owe you can compensation.

          The Flax Engine license is truly a shared source license where the vendor has reserved the right to terminate it out from under you and leave you no way to continue forwards.

          This is something that looks like open source but really is not. This is really no different to signing the up for the Microsoft shared source program.

          https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/shar...g-program.aspx
          You would not call Microsoft Windows open source right. I remember when Microsoft Thanos snapped the Xen Para-virtualisation drivers for windows out of existence because it was based on a publicly open for academic use at the time windows source code repository that was shared source that Microsoft decide they were going to close.

          Yes nado there are many models to open source. But there is a model called shared source that looks very close to open source the problem the difference in the license means the party who hold the first license on shared source can cease it distribution and if they decide to there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

          There is a valid term for what Flax Engine is that is shared source. The valid shared source term give the end user warning the terms of the source code do not give you the open right to continue development.

          Its not really open source if you cannot legally be sure continue development without more of the authors consent.

          Yes the restriction that repositories must be a github fork means countries that for some reason cannot access github are not allowed to share their source code modifications either. And what happens if Microsoft decides to rename or heaven forbid shutdown github. Flax Engine has a single point of failure in the source access and I do not believe this has been done by mistake.

          This single point means makers of Flax Engine can still keep on attempting to find a buyer for closed source version with the promise when they have enough user base they have have enough trapped customers so that a closed source version can be sold at horrible prices and all open source access can be removed so forcing all the users of Flax engine though the closed source version.
          Did you not read what I and others have been saying in this thread?

          I never said it was open source and neither did they. If they had said it was open source then I would have commented on this earlier. They are not being dishonest and they are within their full rights to use a source available model. Just because open source exists does not mean it is the best solution for everything. I am all for GPL and open source, but I am not a open source zealot/evangelist who will brandish others that don't use an open source license as bad.

          They are by no means required to provide the source code to anyone, let alone provide it for free. Real life isn't black/white, and for a company to make money it has to protect it's product IP unless it has an alternate revenue stream.
          Last edited by nado; 07 August 2021, 12:59 AM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by nado View Post
            Did you not read what I and others have been saying in this thread?

            I never said it was open source and neither did they. If they had said it was open source then I would have commented on this earlier. They are not being dishonest and they are within their full rights to use a source available model. Just because open source exists does not mean it is the best solution for everything. I am all for GPL and open source, but I am not a open source zealot/evangelist who will brandish others that don't use an open source license as bad.
            Flax Engine 1.2 Brings Many Big Improvements For This Open-Source Commercial Game Engine
            Nada that is the subject of this thread its this site that getting the reporting wrong. The topic here not true. Flax Engine it self by it developer don't call this a open source part.

            There are parts that Flax developers do provide that are under true open source licenses like MIT.

            But then to use this you require the Flax Engine to use it and the Flax Engine terms in fact over take the MIT license.

            The core license on the Flax Engine is problematic. Yes it would have been smart to have their Flax Engine and other parts under the restrictive license under 1 github account and the parts under MIT license and equal under a different one due to the way they termed their license.

            Do notice on the NetworkSample there the Flax Engine developer are able to properly but the license in the source. They could have put the Flax Engine license properly in the source so avoiding need to use this as it is.


            Any public Distribution (i.e., intended for Engine Licensees generally) which includes Engine Tools(including as modified by you under the License) must take place either through the Store (e.g., for distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Flax’s GitHub Network (e.g., for distributing source code).

            Yes this bit end up with the EULA over riding the MIT license. Remember you need the flax engine to use the MIT licensed bits.

            Originally posted by nado View Post
            They are by no means required to provide the source code to anyone, let alone provide it for free. Real life isn't black/white, and for a company to make money it has to protect it's product IP unless it has an alternate revenue stream.
            True I agree there is no requirement that the provide the source code to anyone. But when they go around claiming bits are open source like the networksample at first those parts appear open source might make the mistake of coping them to your person gitlab then you wake up that you need Flax Engine that you have already agreed to the EULA of. See this possible nice DCMA entrapment. Please note some of the host sites will pull all you public repositories for a DCMA strike.

            The reality is while the core EULA is the way it is nothing from the Flax GitHub can be trust as safe to use open source even if it appears so. Remember they will advertise these bits as safe to use open source.

            Flax Engine has horrible bad licensing. Using a license in the repository itself is the safest way of doing it. Github terms of service had that the license had to be in the repository to avoid setting off this cascade problems.

            The method Flax Engine had done has made trap ware out of what appears to be normal open source MIT licensed stuff. Yes this does result in them claiming those things are open-source because they are MIT licensed when in reality they are over licened by the EULA so taking away the MIT usage rights.

            Nado license stacking is something you have to be very careful of. Its like the issues that happened in the Linux kernel with code that is MIT licensed and BSD license that there has to be particular rules in those sections that all the code submit into them is MIT or BSD so the GPL over license does not apply.

            Yes the GPL license does have terms that restrict it from infecting parts licensed under different license.
            If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
            This is from GPLv2. This is missing from the Flax Engine EULA.

            The reality here nado is really hard to make copyright licenses that are correct. Even harder when you don't bundle it with the source/ application.

            (i.e., intended for Engine Licensees generally)<< before you point at this bit its the word generally here that is the problem because that open up Pandora box.

            The github terms of service requirement for the license to be in the public archive where possible reduces you risk of creating these chain nightmares.

            Viral license problem is not just a open source copyleft license problem. Viral license problem applies to a lot of different commercial closed source licenses and commercial available source.

            Lot of ways I don't think the license issues are what the flax engine developers have intended. Just a case they have missed small things that are critical to limit scope of license so that you do not unintentionally harm your users when they think they are doing the right thing.


            nado I guess I did not explain it well enough there is a problem with the way flax engine has setup their licensing that end up conflicting with the parts they then go and market as open-source. Remember I don't think this is intentional screw up on their part. Unity3D had to correct their license when they first release reference source access due to creating another chain cascade problem.

            There is a common mistake. People don't think they can by error write a viral software license. Its very easy to write a viral software license once you start doing restrictions and that is the problem. A good safe guard is to include some text saying if something is licensed under another license such as MIT this EULA/License does not apply to make sure you license does not run away on you and effect other items you don't want it to.

            Comment


            • #16
              I see, well that may very well be the case. It can quickly become complicated if you mix and match different licenses for components within the same project.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by sandy8925
                I understand why the license is that way, they do need to earn money after all. And they're allowing for non-commercial usage.
                I also understand the way the license is for the money problem. The way they have implemented it is problem as they have possible by mistake made viral licensing covering more than what they wanted to. The safest and simplest to get right is put the license in with the source.

                Yes this site is wrong to call it a open-source commercial game engine because the flax engine developers don't call it that. What the flax engine developers call open-source parts are not under the core engine license but under MIT license. So flat engine has parts under open source license and parts under commercial license. Yes the commercial license does give then the right to end access to flax engine and has only controlled forks allowed.

                Remember shared source and available source type allows non-commercial usage as well.

                Comment

                Working...
                X