Hacker News Reader

Comment by manbash | Hacker News Reader

This looks great. Just a note though that this is "free as in beer". If you want the source code you'd need to login and pay, it seems.

https://studio.blender.org/projects/dogwalk/gallery/?asset=8...

View on HN

It's free as in freedom!

> The license of our sources is a bit muddled. We'll try to clear that up asap. The full production repository is CC-BY since it mostly includes the original art assets. The source code of the game is GPLv3 since since [sic] that makes more sense for the code base of the project.

They just aren't distributing the source for free, it seems, but you are free to redistribute it however you'd like.

If the source code is actually GPLv3 then they should be distributing the sources without any additional charges (section 6(d) is very clear on this point). Of course, if they are the sole copyright holder they can make up additional rules, but I bristle with describing this as free software under the GPLv3. As it stands, they are implicitly dual-licensing it under a proprietary and GPLv3 license.

Personally, if I was one of the people that bought the source code, I would just upload it on GitHub since you have the right to do so.

The license determines the conditions under which you are allowed to use the program. Section 6(d) thus only states that you cannot charge others for the source code, but that does not constrain their ability to charge you.

This changes, of course, if they are using any third-party GPLv3'ed code - because then they become a redistributor of that code in which case clause 6(d) applies and they must redistribute that code free of charge.

You are restating what I said in my first paragraph -- yes, if they are the sole copyright holders they are not bound by the distribution rules of the GPLv3 in the same way as everyone else -- even if the GPLv3 did attempt to restrict the original author, as sole copyright holders they would be able to ignore the provision anyway.

I still don't agree that this is in the spirit of the GPLv3. In my view, the binaries at least are under a proprietary license.

Free of charge to anyone who receives the binary: this doesn't mean "everyone in the world".

I got the binary, but I still need to pay for source, so not everyone who receives the binary has free source.

Then (as kleiba says) they must not be distributing the binary under the GPLv3: only the source.

> I would just upload it on GitHub since you have the right to do so.

Hopefully, someone will do this. It makes me wonder why they bother to charge for the download when this is an option. I guess they think they can distribute it in a more 'friendly' and 'official' manner than a GitHub link, and that some people will pay a premium for that.

They are distributing for free. For free, they are distributing a compiled version of the game which I have no source to, and no license to creative derivative works of, or to perform or display publicly, and so on.

That thing, which they call Dogwalk, and are distributing for free, is clearly not open source.

The other thing, which they probably also call dogwalk, and they'll give you if you pay them presumably is open source (or maybe the more accurate term is "free software" since the source isn't publicly available - i.e. open), but that doesn't make the download on the page linked by HN open source.

> They just aren't distributing the source for free, it seems, but you are free to redistribute it however you'd like.

Yes, that was my point. I will know the license when I see it in the distributed code :)

But it's still open source!

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

> If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

> No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

But they are distributing binaries of the game to the public for free[1] -- the text you quoted describes the exact opposite situation to what is happening. In this particular case you cannot charge separately for source code under the GPLv3 -- see section 6(d).

Of course, if they are the sole copyright holder, they can dual-license things under a GPL and proprietary license (which is effectively what they are doing here -- the DogWalk binaries available from the linked page are not GPLv3 binaries because they are not following the GPLv3 requirements). But this situation is absolutely not permitted under the GPLv3. Otherwise a company could fork a GPL'd project and just avoid releasing GPL'd source code by charging $1B for the source code.

[1]: https://studio.blender.org/projects/dogwalk/gallery/?asset=8...

> If you want the source code you'd need to login and pay, it seems.

So… like the GPL?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com