back
1 comments
Seems more nuanced then that. You can use Defold to make commercial games for free. You can even extend and modify Defold and use your modified version to make commercial games for free too from what I understand.

And you can also change and modify Defold and distribute your changes and modifications to others, but you can't do so commercially. That said, I think others could still use your modified Defold to make commercial games, just you can't take any money for it.

So it seems to be much more than just visible source. Basically the only thing it doesn't allow is for you to commercialize the Defold engine or some derivative engine based on it. Everything else seems allowed.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

I feel like saying "more nuanced" is misleading. It doesn't change the answer to "is it FOSS?" from "no" to "maybe", but rather to "no, but...". Defold's license unambiguously does not comply with either the Free Software Definition or the Open Source Definition.
Completely true. Defold is not FOSS. And we do not claim that it is.

We initially said that Defold was open source when we actually should have said source available. And we got an unbelievable amount of flak for it! I even received a very disturbing message sent to my private email from a FOSS "champion". And the president of the OSI got in touch as well.

More here: https://defold.com/2020/05/20/Some-thoughts-on-the-open-sour...

I was referring to the "visible source" comment. The Defold license allows much more than just seeing the source.

And I do think the way I've seen people almost "warning" others that Defold isn't "open source" is misleading to most game developer. Unless you plan to sell a commercial game engine and editor and want it to be based of the Defold source code, then you've got access to all the same pros/cons of any other true (based on OSi) open source game engine and editor.

At the end of the day that's what I care about if I'm picking a game engine for my game.

It's a little bit of a strawman on your end. What you imagine to be the intention/argument on the other end isn't the one intended, so a comment like this one ends up dismissing the real issues brought up by people pointing out it's not FOSS.

There is no shortage of discussion these days about independent devs feeling suckered into doing free support for corporations by way of FOSS. At least in that situation those programmers get some form of equity out of the bargain, given the terms of the actually-FOSS licenses. In the case of Defold, they've taken the Apache license and changed it to diminish even that in a way that's directly meant to benefit Defold. There's also the matter of people just not wanting companies to be able to reap undue rewards out of association with FOSS if they're not actually doing FOSS.

It's honestly not a reaction that should be considered surprising. Want to hawk your wares as FOSS? Okay, FOSS licenses exist. Want to take one of those licenses and then alter it in such a way that it's no longer FOSS? Okay, then don't call it FOSS. It's a pretty fair deal.

The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do.

Next: The Defold Foundation is a foundation, not a corporation, and it is registered in Stockholm, Sweden. It has a different legal status than a corporation and while it is allowed to make a profit there are no stock holders or owners that can profit from the earnings.

Also, as a foundation, it has a clear set of goals that cannot be altered:

1. Make the Defold software available to the public.

2. Make the Defold source code available free of charge to a third-party.

3. Manage the Defold software through updates, modifications, development and support.

4. Prevent the Defold software from being commercialised by a third-party.

5. Support the open source community and the use of open licenses.

The reason we had to modify the Apache 2.0 license to add non-commercialization of the engine+editor was to fulfil goal #4.

You might now think that it's pretty stupid to use a modified license since goal #5 says "support the use of open licenses". I agree. I would have preferred an unmodified OS license for the main repo. BUT the Defold Foundation also maintain ~60 other open source repositories, most of them with an MIT License. 32 of these are Defold game engine extensions to interface with things such as In-App Purchases, Analytics, Ads, Camera etc.

Finally I want to say that we are not interested in "independent devs feeling suckered into doing free support". We obviously accept and appreciate contributions, but it is not our goal to make Defold into an engine which relies purely on community contributions to thrive. Defold depends on corporate sponsorships for long-term sustainability, not community contributions. And if we see prominent contributions coming from individuals we are very open to properly compensating said individuals from the funds of the foundation.

> The Defold Foundation does not call Defold FOSS. PERIOD. Stop saying that we do.

How about instead of telling me to stop doing something, you point to the place where I ever did? It's ridiculous that you responded to my comment complaining about strawmanning with... another (even worse) instance of it.

There are so many misdirected arguments in this comments that it doesn't even make sense to try responding to them.

I'm sorry, but your entire post sure sounded like you are upset with Defold claiming the product to be FOSS when in fact we do nothing of the sort.

If I misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise.