Smaller studios would've taken the biggest hits from Unity's Runtime Fee policy, and also helped it retaliate against would-be merger partner AppLovin.
  • GoronmonOP
    3•1 year ago

    keep in mind that unreal engine is also open source.

    The Unreal Engine is not open source by any reasonable definition of open source. Being “source available” is not the same as open source, as you can’t use the code whoever you like.

      • GoronmonOP
        2•1 year ago

        Source available is open source. There’s a recent movement trying to redefine open source to refer only to FOSS, but it’s pretty stupid.

        You have it reversed. The “source available is open source” argument is the more recent idea. Unless by “recent” you mean “in the last 30 years”.

    • @echo64English
      -1•1 year ago

      you can’t use most open source code “however you like” either, they all have licenses. the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can’t mix it with copyleft licenses and you can’t use it commercially.

      but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that’s the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here

      • GoronmonOP
        3•1 year ago

        you can’t use most open source code “however you like” either

        Alright, sure my language was overly broad. “The licensing is restrictive in a way which makes it clearly not open source.” would have been a better choice.

        …the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can’t mix it with copyleft licenses and you can’t use it commercially.

        So, it’s not open source.

        …but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that’s the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here

        That still doesn’t make it open source, mainly because you are missing one of biggest aspects, distribution.

        • @echo64English
          1•1 year ago

          Open source != copyleft. That’s free software if you want to go that route.

          Also, you can distribute your version, of course you can. Both your changes and binary form. It’s just all distributed under epics unreal engine licence

          • GoronmonOP
            2•1 year ago

            Also, you can distribute your version, of course you can.

            Are you sure?

            You may Distribute Engine Code (including as modified by you) in Source Code or object code to a third party who is separately licensed by us to use the same version of the Engine Code that you are Distributing.

            Any public Distribution of Engine Tools (e.g., intended generally for third parties who are separately licensed by us to use the Engine Code) must take place through a marketplace operated by Epic such as the Unreal Engine Marketplace (e.g., for Distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Epic’s GitHub UnrealEngine Network (e.g., for Distributing Source Code).

            So, you can only distribute source to people who are specifically licensed by Epic to use the source. That sure doesn’t sound anything like “open source” to me.

            • @echo64English
              1•1 year ago

              you can only distribute your source under the licence of the source code, yes. just like copyleft licences. The whole concept of open source is demonstrably, flaky.

              You want it to be a concept closer to free software, I say if the source is open, you can modify it and your changes are able to have an effect then it’s open source.

              I don’t think we are going to resolve this. I would prefer if it was free software but that’s not gonna happen for godot or unreal engine