Esenthel Engine, a next-gen game engine supporting Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS and Web, 14 years in development, with hundreds of customers world-wide, now offers brand new full source code licensing options.
Esenthel Engine new Full Source Code licensing
Umm... What's "open source" in "pay a fee to get the source licence?". With that definition UnrealEngine is open source, Unity is open source, Source is open source, etc.
From Wikipedia:
In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone.
Then on your site:
When subscribing to the source license, in order to access the source code, you need to:Right there.1. Buy Source License.
You might call it "open source" but it isn't open source what you're doing. Methinks you're fishing for clicks in a bad way : /
Yeah, it appears you are misrepresenting it's open-source-ness. You might want to revise that to indicate that rather than open source, you are making available a $499 per year licensing option to provide source access.
Author
The source has been opened, but it wasn't claimed that it's for free ;) I've updated the first post to make it more clear.
Sorry for any confusion! :)
o·pen-source
adjective
COMPUTING
-
1.denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.
I wonder where that definition is coming from.
If source code is open-source, that just means that it is made available to the public to be viewed, but I don't think that gives people the right to use it as they want, nor the right to re-distribute it, thus the phrase, "free and open-source."
I thought it works sort of like "You can see my secret recipe, but you don't have the rights to re-create it."
But there are all types of licenses that open-source software can fall into. And I believe that some could be paid.
I could be mistaken though.
If source code is open-source, that just means that it is made available to the public to be viewed, but I don't think that gives people the right to use it as they want, nor the right to re-distribute it, thus the phrase, "free and open-source."
I thought it works sort of like "You can see my secret recipe, but you don't have the rights to re-create it."
But there are all types of licenses that open-source software can fall into. And I believe that some could be paid.
I could be mistaken though.
I wonder where that definition is coming from.
From Google.
Another def from opensource.org
Wikipedia
The definition of open source provided by the Open Source Initiative is widely viewed as the correct definition of open source, established by the precedent of long usage. You are free to disagree, of course, but your disagreement won't change the consensus.
If source code is open-source, that just means that it is made available to the public to be viewed, but I don't think that gives people the right to use it as they want, nor the right to re-distribute it, thus the phrase, "free and open-source."
It's not being made available "to the public". It's being made available, with restrictions, only to those who subscribe to the $499/year license option. Per the license, you are not allowed to distribute the source to anyone who is not a license holder. That is not open source by any sane person's reckoning.
OP: Thank you for your clarifying edits, and good luck.
I saw this quote on Wikipedia:
"The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free."
— Free Software Foundation, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
"Nearly," lends to the assumption that not "all" open source software is free. There also seems to be a certain disambiguation needed for the word "free" as it pertains to software.
To the OP, if the $500 dollars gives full rights to the source, and it is a good engine, that seems like a good deal, but you would have to be competent though.
"The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free."
— Free Software Foundation, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
"Nearly," lends to the assumption that not "all" open source software is free. There also seems to be a certain disambiguation needed for the word "free" as it pertains to software.
To the OP, if the $500 dollars gives full rights to the source, and it is a good engine, that seems like a good deal, but you would have to be competent though.
Guys, nothing about "open source" prevents software from being sold (see: RedHat). Hell, "Free" as in libre software can and is sold all the time.
Any definitions you have to the contrary are just plain wrong.
That said, this engine isn't free or open source for any number of reasons, primarily this one:
"You're not allowed to share the source code with anyone, except users which have the same Esenthel Source License as you.".
And a $500/year subscription when I can get Unreal 4 for $19/month?
Scratch that, I can Unreal for $19 (+5%), you don't need to keep the subscription going.
Oooh! I love this provision:
If you violate any terms of this agreement, or you are rude to Esenthel Engine authors, or you spread false information about the engine or its authors, then your account, license and access to files will be terminated."
There also seems to be a certain disambiguation needed for the word "free" as it pertains to software.
Not when RMS or the Free Software Foundation uses the word - it means free as in preserving the 'rights' they believe are essential to end users.
Free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'.
"Open Source" is a development paradigm. "Free Software" is an ideology.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
