One of the big winners of the Unity debacle is the free and open source Godot Engine, which has seen its funding soar to a much more impressive level as Unity basically gave them free advertising.

One of the big winners of the Unity debacle is the free and open source Godot Engine, which has seen its funding soar to a much more impressive level as Unity basically gave them free advertising.

        • jimbo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1311·
          1 year ago

          When did the term “open source” start including specifics about licensing terms? My understanding from the past few decades was that “open source” meant the source was available for people to look at and compile.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            Ideas started in the 70s, Free Software Movement happened in the 80s, the term Open Source from the 90s as an alternative to “free” to be more clear.

            It always meant this.

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1010·
          1 year ago

          It is source available

          Yes, open source.

          Not Open Source

          You mean free/libre? Open source literally just means you can see the source.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
            82·
            1 year ago

            Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use the source code,[1] design documents,[2] or content of the product. The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

            • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              And then later on…

              Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.

              Unreal Engine is technically open source, because it’s source code is made available to the general public. But it is licensed under a restrictive EULA instead of any of the normal licenses you’d expect for an open source project (MIT, Apache, GPL3, etc).

              This is definitely pedantic, but “open source” is a colloquial term, not a technical one. Most people mean FOSS when they say open source, but the terms aren’t exactly equivalent. The license that governs the code is really the only part that actually matters.