Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Not in the industry, so pure speculation.

Unreal Engine's old business model were exactly that, get you excited with demos and sign up ( paid ) for their engine. And it was the same with UE 3 and UE 4. But in 2015 all that changed. It was open sourced on Github, it has a very sustainable revenue model due to the explosion of Mobile Gaming, the Gaming industry as a whole is now bigger than Movies and Music industry combined.

I think it is fair to say EPYC no longer has the incentive to do that with UE 5. And because it is / will be open source, they can now actively work with many different partners ( Hardware such as Sony and Microsoft and other publishers ) to make sure those technology works as intended.

View on HN

FYI though, It's not open source. Open source has a meaning and Unreal doesn't fit that meaning.

https://www.google.com/search?q=open+soruce+definition

It would technically be "source available", no?

It is open source in the sense the source code is available for you to see. But probably not on the usage part.

It is not open source in any sense.

You can see it so that part is shared but if you try to use it you fall under a very different licease. If you try to modify and sell you can't. Modify and use you must pay. Use you must pay.

Bait open source might be a better term.

This isn’t true, they encourage you to run source builds instead of the editor and you are free to modify the engine for your projects as needed. In fact they’re even generous enough to allow you to post up to 30 lines of engine code in public forums.

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing

that in no way makes it "open source" in the common use of the term.

Hmm, rereading my comment...nope didn’t say anything about it being open source....said something entirely different...

In the sense of you can see the source, it is open source. Not everyone will agree with your definition of open source.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that they can assert something as a counterpoint on no basis. "That's just your opinion," is not a rational basis to disagree, especially when your counterpoint requires the implied basis (semantic) to be equally relevant to the original argument's basis (law).

"Open source" isn't based on the semantic that the source code is public, its definition comes exclusively from a set of guidelines that limit the rights of the original creator to enforce a specific range of IP protections guaranteed to them by domestic and international laws. There are various types of public licenses, also known as GNU, that are considered "true open source" in that the original creator can only enforce some provisions like a source attribution credit in a modified distribution. And there are permission licenses, like the MIT License, which don't necessarily meet every guideline for FOSS, but do meet most of them.

When it comes to IP, the only basis that matters is legal, as its the only basis that's universally enforceable. Laypersons can define "open source" however they please, but when engineers, devs, business, and legal discuss it, it has one definition, and that definition is well-established as exemptions from current IP law.

The rationale is people can have different opinion, preference, thinking. People do not always agree with a single definition. No entity has sole authority of a meaning open source.

You're applying some general definition of "open", when the term "open source" has had a well understood definition for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Dist...

http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source

O... k? But what does open source mean today? What has it meant for approximately the last twenty years? Did Epic claim their software is open source? Did Microsoft claim their source-available software was open source? I wonder why not, it would've been a good marketing term, what with all the developers who want open source.

The answer is that pretty much everyone agreed that open source means something roughly equivalent to the OSI definition, and even big companies agreed with that... until a year ago or so when somebody decided that they wanted all the benefits of claiming to contribute to open source without actually doing so, and a bunch of people who never actually cared about the FOSS ecosystem aided them in doing so.

at some point in the nineties open source initiative emerged as the bastion of what's open source and what not and put strict guideline to the usage of the term, which for whatever reason people around the tech community elected to follow even if OSI doesn't own the open source trademark.

guess it helps the discussion and to defend agains marketing-speak appropriation to have a single uniform definition. but it's confusing as heck if someone is unknowing or resisting the OSI coup to position themselves as the open source regent.

Lots of people arguing schematics. Everyone knows exactly what the guy meant.

I don't see why continuing to argue it makes any sense here. All this type of behavior does is drive people away from further discussions on sites like this, reddit, etc.

The word meaning can always evolve, at another point for whatever reason the open source may not be the same as what you prefer. No one own the sole authority of the word usage.

There won't be single uniform definition.

Sorry for the confusion and late reply. I didn't catch this part of the comment. I cant edit it now. I should not have use the term "Open Source" which I agree meant something different. May be source available would be better. But the point of my argument still stand.

Please accept my sincere apology. And no offence intended.

Let hope we continue to focus and amaze at the technical marvel that is UE5.

UE5 is not open source, it is shared source or "source available". Assuming it follows the model of UE4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

Good point, but OP's point is that they can't hide behind demos. Anyone who requests the source will most likely get it and be able to see what's going on.

Indeed, that part is accurate. It would be technically interesting if the tech demo was a part of UE5 source release. I'm not familiar if they've done that in the past.

Demos are sometimes released in the Unreal Marketplace. Unity often does the same in their own store.

Possibly a typo, but EPYC is a processor brand. EPIC makes Unreal (and Fortnite).

Haha yes been writing too much about AMD and EPYC. Didn't realise until you point it out.

It's not open source..

Irrelevant for the point he is making.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com