Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    780

    Default 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    BTW they changed it now:


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    somewhere at the edge of the Milky Way
    Posts
    98

    Thumbs up

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

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

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    884

    Default

    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?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •