View Single Post
Old 10 April 2015, 05:08   #45
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Akira View Post
So much this. Totally agree.
I think some programs are better off starting as open source, stuff like drivers, utilities, operating systems, technical/utilities stuff, but others, like specific programs and games, do not benefit from open sourcing. Why? Because even though I am sure open sourcing a project can benefit the code of the program a lot, the concept and goal/s of the program will not.
What about open sourcing a program removes the rights you already have to control your branch, which will almost certainly be the primary one?

Originally Posted by Akira View Post
We've been asked many times about open sourcing PT-1210 and my reason not to do it is not selfishness, it's not commercial value because we don't sell it, and it's not because I am hoarding some technical prowess in the code that I want no one to have. It's just that I like that it is a program I made with a friend while in complete agreement, all the time, as to what it is supposed to do and how, and I want to keep it that way for as long as we feel like we can keep working on it. I am not sure about Hoffman's view on the subject but I would guess it's similar.
Again, nothing changes about that. There is no requirement for you to accept peoples' proposals (as it is presently), nor their changes to the code. The concept of branches -- and especially forks -- are good to be familiar with. Additionally, the concept of a "pull request" is such that another developer can say 'hey, I made these changes, you can add them in if you want to'. Nothing is mandatory.

Originally Posted by Akira View Post
In a program like mine, lack of focus on the concept would have yielded a program that was never released in the state it is now: something that does everything we wanted it to do and works in 80% of scenarios (because, of course, has bugs, but functionally, it's 100%). Open source programs usually give me the idea that they are an eternal work in progress that never gets finished and that doesn't work for things like games.
There are plenty of large game projects that are open source, you just have to look around.

While you're not likely to find a new AAA game open sourced this way, recently even Unreal Engine 4 took on this direction.

But you're right, open source implies (given the developer interest/built community strim mentions) eternal development -- that's rather the point. It does not however, imply no releases. That's up to you.

Originally Posted by Akira View Post
phx released his source code to Solid Gold but ONLY after he finished the game. It is meant to be for people who want to learn upon it and create their own thing based on it
His game is finished, and that was only possible, I think, because he worked with his team closely and focused until they finished the game. If they had opened it in the middle of development, the game would have never been finished.

As much as we need open source programs in many aspects of the Amiga world, we also need a lot of people like phx or Mrs. Beanbag who will work on one project, with focus, until completionof their programs.
Agreed. And it's up to the developer, of course! But I certainly think this can work well, both ways. When I look at the thread about the Rygar conversion capers, etc, it's obvious that there are enthusiasts who will gladly contribute work to good projects. That's motivating / educational / exciting for everyone.



Last edited by TCD; 10 April 2015 at 09:28. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged.
wXR is offline  
Page generated in 0.06832 seconds with 9 queries