Amazon Publishes A Free, Source-Access AAA Game Engine

[schmidtbag]

bullshit again. learn to read.
you may not publicly release the Lumberyard engine source code

Looks like you're the one with the reading problem. The right to publicly release != the right to view/modify the source code. The source code is readily available to users.

You need to calm down.

[pal666]

The right to publicly release != the right to view/modify the source code.

imbecile, no public release means *not everyone* has access to it

[schmidtbag]

imbecile, no public release means *not everyone* has access to it

It means YOU can't publicly release it. The source code itself is publicly accessible to anyone who chooses to download the engine (from Amazon), and as far as I'm aware, there is no restriction that.

[bug77]

It means YOU can't publicly release it. The source code itself is publicly accessible to anyone who chooses to download the engine (from Amazon), and as far as I'm aware, there is no restriction that.

If you can't release it or its modifications, then it's not open source.

[schmidtbag]

If you can't release it or its modifications, then it's not open source.

Does everyone here have an attention span of only the last post? Is this nitpicking really getting anywhere? If anyone is legally allowed to view and modify the source code, then what does that make it? Again - I'm not talking about what is legally defined as open source. As I also stated, even Amazon pointed out it does not meet the legal definition. But do you not realize that legal definitions aren't the only ones? A tomato is legally a vegetable, but it is botanically a fruit. Culinarily, a vegetable and a fruit are very different things. So, that being said, you're keeping up a pretty petty argument here.

When most people think "open source", they see that as code that is legally viewable and editable. Any other implications must be specified. For example, using "FLOSS" means you can view, modify, and redistribute the code with little to no restriction. But even then, there are still restrictions. Something that is open source can apply to a handful of different licenses, some that, based on your definition, would not be considered open source (such as the BSD license). But, there are legally open source variants of the BSD license.

[tuke81]

It's not open source, end of story. Heck they even say so in their FAQ, so why argue. It's source-available with amazon licensing terms.

[schmidtbag]

It's not open source, end of story. Heck they even say so in their FAQ, so why argue. It's source-available with amazon licensing terms.

I'm aware... in my last post, I mentioned that. As for the term "source-available", if we're going to get legal here, that's not the right term either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-s...urce-available
That does not match the limitations stated in section 57.2a in the "licensing terms" page you linked to. In case you don't feel like reading, source-available has restrictions on modifying source code, but Amazon's license permits it - you're just not allowed to redistribute your modifications.

If you want to take my approach and define this as a dictionary definition, both "available" and "open" are synonyms of each other.

[Luke_Wolf]

Looking at the words "open" and "source" separately, it does literally meet the definition, because what that is saying is you are allowed to (open) view/modify the source (code), which is true. If you look at "open source" as a single non-legal term, then you can argue about semantics. When you look at "open source" as a legal term, Lumberyard explicitly does not meet the definition, even according to Amazon.

If you do this with all English multiword names you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble. Open Source is a name and so the fundamental words that make it up lose their intrinsic value, and while these words can align with what the name means... well... let's put it this way, if you think PETA ethically treats animals, you're deluded. Open Source as a name is defined by OSI, and while you can argue that semantically the source is "open" for this, it doesn't qualify for the name, and arguing semantics isn't going to make friends with anybody.

[bug77]

Does everyone here have an attention span of only the last post? Is this nitpicking really getting anywhere? If anyone is legally allowed to view and modify the source code, then what does that make it? Again - I'm not talking about what is legally defined as open source. As I also stated, even Amazon pointed out it does not meet the legal definition. But do you not realize that legal definitions aren't the only ones? A tomato is legally a vegetable, but it is botanically a fruit. Culinarily, a vegetable and a fruit are very different things. So, that being said, you're keeping up a pretty petty argument here.

Can we agree to call it open source by schmidtbag's definition of open source?

When most people think "open source", they see that as code that is legally viewable and editable. Any other implications must be specified...

You pulled that out of your a**. Here's what open source means, according to Wikipedia:

open source as a development model promotes universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone

So apparently "most people" disagree with you and think otherwise.

[schmidtbag]

Luke_Wolf I agree for the most part (though depending on your perspective, the PETA comparison could be contradictory). In my initial post, I was stating that the source code can be viewed and modified and is therefore open. I used the term loosely. I never stated I was using the OSI and legal definition of open source, but some people just need to get up-in-arms over every little detail. That being said, pal666 and bug77 in particular are very often seen getting into an argument with someone. No offense to phoronix, but the forums here aren't an easy place to make friends when you have people nit-picking every single problem.

bug77 Interesting how you crop out the parts you don't want to hear in order to suit your own argument. If "open source" wasn't so loosely used by such a wide demographic, terms like FLOSS wouldn't need to exist. Yes, I understand there is an official definition for the term, but as Luke_Wolf pointed out, not everything is used in the way it was meant to be represented. Does that make me wrong? Maybe, but in this context, most people wouldn't care enough to go on about it for as long as you have. Most people would just understand I'm generalizing, and generally speaking, open source at the bare minimum means "free to view and modify".