| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2854 |
Closed-source scene tools
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, being tickled every now and then.
So, why exactly do we get excellent tools once in a while, but which happen to be closed-source (and often for a specific OS, but that's only a side-issue), subject to inevitable bit-rot once their creators invariably lose interest or worse, among other problems?
My personal head canon says it's likely a combination of
1) being embarrassed of dirty code
2) not wanting other people to take snippets of code (and possibly pass them off as their own)
3) not wanting other people to modify the program to suit their needs (and possibly distribute it)
4) "I'll take my knowledge to the grave, suckers"
List is probably incomplete, but anyways, would like to hear yours' opinions on this. =) |
|
... 41 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2854 |
Quoting Cruzer6) What do they need it for? If you release a tool, obviously you expect people to use it, no?
And if you refer to the source, well, see my point about preventing bit-rot. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
@Krill: Agree. I was just trying to guesstimate why some tool coders don't want to release their source.
@Raistlin: Great job! I should do the same. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
Yep, it's always a pity when things get lost on the way, because people think source release is not necessary. Warpcopy comes to mind: Warpcopy II V0.1 alpha 3
But I feel in the last years things have been changing to the better with many tools being released including source or even public repositories.
That said @Burglar if you're reading this: please switch your png2prg repository to public or add source code snapshots to your releases. I really don't want this great tool to be lost. |
| |
Slator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 273 |
Quote: Yep, it's always a pity when things get lost on the way, because people think source release is not necessary. Warpcopy comes to mind: Warpcopy II V0.1 alpha 3
But I feel in the last years things have been changing to the better with many tools being released including source or even public repositories.
That said @Burglar if you're reading this: please switch your png2prg repository to public or add source code snapshots to your releases. I really don't want this great tool to be lost.
well speaking about warpcopy, Graham lost his harddrive due to a crash back ages ago and only had old sources saved.
A pity, but I would rather have graham back than this source... |
| |
Street Tuff
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 88 |
When it comes to Demos you probably need some KRAWALL!!!
https://bitbucket.org/streetuff/workspace/repositories/
(Links are in the comments for those 2 demos since release)
Misery 3 (DTV) Source Misery 3 (source linked to the release)
Tunnelscheisse Tunnelscheisse (source linked to the release)
Kind regards
Tuff |
| |
Boogaloo
Registered: Aug 2019
Posts: 21 |
Quote: Other possible reasons...
1.1) I don't want a flood of suggestions for "why don't you change it this and that way?"
6) What do they need it for?
I would rather say that 1.1 is one of the really good reasons to publish the source. Then you can reply "do it yourself, the source is public". |
| |
mankeli
Registered: Oct 2010
Posts: 110 |
Aren't all programs open source if you know machine language? ;) |
| |
Six
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 287 |
I get why people are hesitant. You put the time and effort into creating something, release the thing source and all, then come back a few months later to find someone's lifted it, reworked it a little bit, promoted the hell out of themselves, and is now applauded as the genius "inventor" of the thing. Years later your original version of the thing is routinely dismissed as somehow a derivative of theirs. I'd imagine the "everyone's a celebrity" era is probably producting *more*, not *less* of these experiences.
But... it's important to set those individual frustrations aside and consider what's best for the community as a whole - and that's open source everything. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2854 |
Quoting SixI get why people are hesitant. You put the time and effort into creating something, release the thing source and all, then come back a few months later to find someone's lifted it, reworked it a little bit, promoted the hell out of themselves, and is now applauded as the genius "inventor" of the thing. Years later your original version of the thing is routinely dismissed as somehow a derivative of theirs. I'd imagine the "everyone's a celebrity" era is probably producting *more*, not *less* of these experiences. Do you speak out of personal experience?
Because really, once you properly put out source publically etc., you have prior art and attribution and all, which you can point to.
Some fuckwits may ignore your licence, but that should be an exception and not the norm. |
| |
mankeli
Registered: Oct 2010
Posts: 110 |
I think what six is referring to, is somewhat orthogonal to the copyleft licenses.
Copyleft licenses are designed to force companies to give back something to the open source community, in case they would like to sell/spread your software in binary form.
What six is mentioning, feels to me more primal. It's the feeling when you see someone getting praise from the audience, even if they are just rehashing work by others. Probably the same that makes the demoscene somewhat allergic on using commercial game engines. Copyleft licenses can't help with that.
It's kinda interesting (historically) how the copyleft licenses were originally an American invention, building on the long-established Unix world. (Remember that companies like Microsoft actually INVENTED the fact that you can even ask money for a software!) But the demoscene was more about just cracking and spreading commercial software, and the hobbyist utilities got spread similarly. As with the commercial wares, hobbyist tools got disassembled, hacked and improved and spread as well. There's a kind of "unwritten law" in the demoscene about this, like how SID music can be just used in whatever productions, as long as they are "within the scene". Maybe. :)
(unrelated note: grr, had to wrote this post the second time, because I forgot to copy it to clipboard before clicking submit, as csdb tends to sometime just go into this weird state where it just discards the post, and if you click back button, the text input field is empty) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
