1. 9

  2. 18

    It is not open source though. It’s license prohibits you from selling modified engine versions, which is not compliant with OSD point 1. Additionally, their definition for “Game Engine Product” is way too broad so it probably breaks OSD’s point 6. Some people have pointed this out to them, we are yet to see any reconsideration.

    Edit: looks like they are changing their marketing to exclude the phrase open source.

    1. 8

      The language even looks misleading. They keep saying free and open on the first page. It’s how lots of sites say “FOSS.” Then, the next page says this:

      “Defold is a free and open game engine with a permissive license derived from the popular Apache 2.0 License. The license grants you the freedom to develop games without worrying about paying licensing fees or royalties on your earnings.”

      The references to permissive and Apache make the reader think it’s going to be like that. Then, clicking the license shows us it’s not like that at all. They need to fix all this so it doesn’t undermine the great thing they’re doing in sharing their code.

      1. 3

        thanks , updated the title

        1. 4

          Referring to it as a permissive license is a bit confusing, as permissive is often used to refer to BSD, MIT and similar licenses which have fewer restrictions than some of the copyleft licenses. The article and linked pages never describe the license as permissive, so why not just put the article title, “King shares the Defold game engine source code and invites collaborators and partners” as the submission title?

          1. 2

            Yeah, I see your point, can’t edit the title anymore unfortunately. I got the permissive part from the tweet linked in the above comment https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517

        2. 1

          His Majesty giveth, but His Majesty also taketh away.

        3. 9

          This includes the Clojure-based desktop editor that Ragnar and I spoke about at Clojure/conj a few years ago.