Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

I was thinking of that yes. But I think we're splitting hair. According to the internetz GPL and MIT are both considered open source. Regardless, all I was saying is that MIT is very permissive so if that was the gist everyone was taking away then I agree.

 

You can release your own closed source version, but the open version is still there. For a game engine, the ability to do this is ESSENTAL (unless you're only planning on making FLOSS games on it). The reason for this is that you need to distribute the runtime as part of your closed source game.

In practice, though, this is unlikely. If you fix and improve things in the engine, you have every incentive to push that back upstream. The engine enhancements aren't the value your adding, the games you're making is the value your adding. When you provide your changes up-stream, you don't have to port them back in to gain the features in the next release, they will be part of the next release.

EDIT: as far as copyleft licenses go, the SUN/Oracle's CDDL can work in a commercial game, because it attaches per-source file, not per binary.

 

By the way, it's been some days since I visited this thread and just wanted to give my 2c on the CEO situation. In my experience when a temporary CEO is appointed not much changes at a company. They usually bring in someone that has clean reputation (don't know anything about the IBM guy by the way) and just want operations to continue as normal. What I'm getting at is, I would not expect any dramatic changes during the IBM CEO's reign. Usually they want to stabilize the situation while they hunt for a new CEO.

 

If the engine is open source but can be compiled as a library that is linked-in then you can use open source with proprietary software. It has to have correct open source license though, like LGPL I think.

 

It's possible to get much of the benefits of an engine that way, but it (obviously) limits what you can do at least a little bit. I'm not sure if it would clash with licenses for console SDKs (as I've not seen them). It's also worth noting the LGPL is written as an addendum to the GPL, with either document alone being far more complex then the MIT license (let alone trying to figure out what the interactions between them are).

Ultimately the MIT License is more then adequate for the task, because there's really not going to be an advantage to using some closed version. Certainly not for any length of time.

 

Unlikely that any potential CEO would consider taking on this job of pruning the excessive staffing, so it will be best, for their hiring processes, to do the pruning asap, just to make the position both more tenable and attractive to potential candidates.

 

Interesting take. Time will tell.

 

Not in my case.

By the third title of my trilogy if not sooner.

 

You make 100 million per title?

 

Is it "normal" to calculate a custom Licence on expectation?
When a inhouse Engine is a cost factor, why not use some harder numbers.
Like Engine cost 10% from our planed investment of 20million so we pay you 2million for Engine. We have a modern Engine Production ready with less risk factors and you have our money. Win Win.
Some accountants must know the "value".

 

many good points here,

and more,,
https://twitter.com/gekido/status/1712273764338278715

 

If it were as simple as "we will pay you [x]" everyone would just say "we'll pay you $1".

 

Disagree. Top management needs to be someone who can manage people and listen to the gamers and dev beneath them to enable those employees. Doesn't need a vision but does need to be able to enable the vision of those in his employ who have them, and can hear those ideas and make smart choices.

Kinda like many devs need a production manager to stop feature creep and actually get a product out the door, as the gamedevs will be so busy adding stuff and making stuff better they'd never actually finish. There are lots of different types of people in this world and we want the right people with the right personalities and skillsets doing the right jobs, which means creators creating and managers managing.

 

Well, at least there's some hope on the horizon. All depends on the new CEO after this interim one. Hopefully, they cut off all the fat the company has accumulated over the last decade and consolidate the tech. Unity really needs to ditch legacy systems for good. If Unreal can do it, so can Unity.

 

I mean Epic Games develop and market an engine since years and some publisher must have a accountant which can say what department cost X.

I mean some more substance than "yeah baby we make a A- Game but its sells like AAA+, but yo 5% is soo much from 100m dollar say we give 3m but only when we have the money yoyoyo."

 

And then the negotiations happen via dance off?

 

And the contract is a karaoke recording

 

I prefer breakdancing competitions. As we've seen in the movie "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo," rich people have a fundamental weakness to breakdancing.

 

No release notes for 2022.3.11. It seems the only item to add was "an amazing internal machine that counts how many millions you're doing every day"

 

Release notes are typically a week or so behind their release. It's something that started roughly a year ago.

 

They may be few and far between these days in the time of the specialist but once upon a time we had generalists, people who could do a little bit coding, bit design, some people skills etc... Managers are just glorified secretaries.

 

Yeah, no. Managers, like producers, are pretty important to production. Just because you've only ever encountered bad ones means you understand their role.

 

And is yet another of those head-scratchingly dysfunctional issues. It's very annoying, and it's not like there's some difficult problem to fix here. The mind boggles how it's still an issue.

 

The CEO sets the vision and the atmosphere for a business. Take that as you will, but Steve Jobs is an example of a visionary that was able to push Apple to the top. The guy before him said that he felt Apple could capture one third of the market at most, and that was all they ever achieved under his watch. The CEO is one of the most important people to the long term success of any business. You just don't see good CEOs often enough to realize this.

 

I don't want to give false hope, but this is a speech Unity's new interim CEO gave a few years ago. It's encouraging.

Is Jim given the boot in a few months? Does he ultimately have the interests of a board with their head in the clouds?

There are incompetent do-nothings making fat paychecks who are going to exert their will to justify their positions of influence. Time will tell if Unity wants to cut the rot at its root, or if it's going to sit and fester like a ticking time bomb. The serpent rarely wants to cut one of its own heads off.

If his role at Red Hat is any indication, he seems a master of playing politics while still getting some tech stuff done. So I'm expecting a slowed, but continued decline as they do some things to bring value to the engine, but the usual corporate rot festers.

 

Red Hat and IBM are trying to destroy the Open Source environment. This interim CEO is part of this attack.

(well many tech corporations are trying to destroy the open source)

 

Citation needed.

 

Unity share price hasn't recovered. It's down around $28.50 at time of writing, about 20% down from when this debacle started.

 

collision detection disabled. wonder how long they can watch this.

 

you could use google or bing, because this is not the place to debate this. I've posted that comment because there was someone saying this new ceo is the savior of unity when it comes in reality from a software house that is hostile to the competition and clients.

A healthy competition environment should focus on giving quality to clients but this is too difficult so most corporations and business focus on destroying their competitors so the clients has no choice but go with them. Because there is no alternative

 

On the contrary it's a topic covering the interim CEO, and if you really thought that this wasn't an appropriate place to discuss it you wouldn't have brought it up. Besides it's not like we haven't already talked about a ton of unrelated or tangentially related topics in this thread like other engines. I can't see the mods caring now.

IBM's been involved with open source for 25+ years. I'm not aware of or able to find any major controversies from them. You might be able to make a claim for Red Hat since there's the whole killing off of CentOS, but Jim W. had already left the company two years prior to that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/02/ibm-president-jim-whitehurst-steps-down-after-red-hat-deal.html
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/centos-linux-going-end-life-what-does-m

 

Red Hat is a wholly owned subsidiary of IBM, so the CentOS (and others, more recently) situation paint IBM in the same light as Red Hat because they are the same company.

That said, it's fair to say that Jim was already gone so it doesn't apply to him.

 

That's not how subsidiaries work. They're separate and distinct companies. A parent company is usually a majority shareholder giving them control over the company but it's not a requirement. Epic Games is a subsidiary of Tencent for example even though they don't have the majority of shares.

Red Hat is an independent subsidiary. IBM may wholly own them but they're still separate from IBM.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/independent-subsidiary

 

Google and Bing change the results based on your search history. They are not great sources due to that inconsistency

 

You missed the phrase "wholly owned" that means IBM owns it COMPELTELY. There are no other owners. They own 100% of Red Hat.

To put it in Red Hat's words:
"IBM (NYSE:IBM) and Red Hat announced today that they have closed the transaction under which IBM acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Red Hat"

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/pre...hybrid-cloud-future?intcmp=701f20000012s5PAAQ

 

I understand they're "wholly owned" but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. IBM owning Red Hat doesn't mean they're necessarily directly involved in the operation of that company.

 

If IBM says Red Hat doesn't do something, they don't do it. Of course, the way IBM/Red Hat has treated their FLOSS obligations is hardly the darkest point in IBM's history.

 

That's the keyword isn't it: if. We don't know if it's IBM's decision or if it's Red Hat's decision. Just being a wholly owned subsidiary doesn't mean IBM is directly telling them everything to do.

 

Yes, and they obviously approved of the CentOS et. al. behavior because if they didn't they could have prevented it. IBM is painted with the same brush.

 

You know what I think I'm going to start putting everyone who thinks they know business but don't know it on ignore. I'm tired of reading assumptions from people who don't have sources to back up their statements.

 

Huh... gonna put yourself on ignore? Is that a new feature?

 

On CEO options, I hear Bobby Kotick is free now....

 

Or you could do what I do, just scroll past them...

 

lol

shhh please, don't give them ideas

 

So in other words your source is that you made it the F*** up.

 

i don't know much about those things (so maybe i'll be ignored xD) but i had observed several tch corporations endorsing open-source projects such as godot. Could you provide tangible evidence to substantiate your statements (beyond a mere "google it" response)?

 

calm your horses and be civilized. you want to be a fan of the new ceo fine, but don't start insulting me

a simple search about "red hat open source" will give you enough answer more than I can post here

 

it wasn't me that brought it up

 

I never said I was a fan, but I did say you made the claim "Red Hat and IBM are trying to destroy the Open Source environment. This interim CEO is part of this attack," which you did, and that you needed to actually provided any basis in reality for that statement, which you did not.

 

Great many words saying absolutely nothing else than we should expect nothing to change any time soon.

[Edit]: This is also funny, because they broke up our contract already, so our working relationship F***ed up already. I guess really there is no intent to un(F*** up) it.