[cxr]

Not actually open source. This is yet another instance of a project eager to reap the rewards of being associated with "open source" without committing to it (i.e. with a license that would make it so). Defold is source-available and some flavor of royalty-free with limitations.

It's actually worse than that, though, because it goes out of its way to obscure the license terms; in this instance, they're going for association with the cachet and warm fuzzies of the Apache license by throwing that name around, despite not actually being Apache licensed. This is not the result of oversight or ignorance. It's intentionally deceptive.

For anyone who thinks that I'm reading between the lines and overstating this, you can refer to the last time this came up. They received sufficient pushback about their messaging. They're not just aware of the discrepancy between the consensus definition and the way they're using it, they acknowledged it explicitly. In response, they said, "We are humbled [...] also sorry for misrepresenting the license" and that "We have updated the website to reflect this and we no longer use the term"[1]. In 2023, there's a big fat nav item at the top of the site that says "Open Source". You click it and read the fine print which gradually reveals the truth of the matter. The "open source" part refers (apparently?) to... their extension ecosystem?

Everything about this screams, "We know exactly what we're doing, but we're going about it in such a way that we can claim plausible deniability."

1. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217>

[pvg]

I'm reading between the lines and overstating this, you can refer to the last time this came up.

"Open Source" was wrongly added to the title by the poster. It's not used on the site to describe the engine.

[SXX]

It is literally in top menu bar.

Leading to page that says that Defond is not actually open source.

[pvg]

"has navigation that takes you to open source stuff" is not "claims it's open source". The title is just wrong and they have clearly fixed the thing people were complaining about last time. It's not reading between the lines, it's simply misreading.

[cxr]

> we no longer use the term "Open Source" as to not confuse it with the OSD.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217>

What am I misreading?

[pvg]

They don't use the term "Open Source" to describe their engine. They used to, years ago, and now they don't.

[cxr]

> We have updated the website to reflect this and we no longer use the term "Open Source"

They didn't say they were going to "no longer use the term (with respect to the Defold engine)". They said weren't using it. Why? Precisely so "as to not confuse it with the OSD". Let's recap:

They used to use the term "open source" (one part of an overall effort to misrepresent themselves and their work). Then they said they took it out—which means that if the term is there now—and it is there now—then they either didn't actually take it out, or they took it out and then put it back in, even after saying they were "sorry for misrepresenting the license under which we make the source code available".

Prevaricating on the whether or not a known bad actor is technically wrong in sidling up next to a line they've already once crossed isn't a defense of the subject of here—because the subject is not strictly confined to whether or not they are crossing it now. It is the very fact that they've indisputably crossed line before, admitted to it and issued a presumed sincere apology when called out, and yet here they are—reaping the rewards of the misleading[1] way in which their messaging is being perceived (again).

1. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misleading>

[SXX]

In my opinion they intentionally keep it misleading. And fact that every once in a while someone posts about their project with "open source" in title is good proof that it does confuse a lot of people.

[pvg]

It's proof that someone got something wrong in a title, a thing that happens on HN multiple times a day.

[Reubend]

It's close enough. You can use the engine to make whatever games you want, modify the code, rebuild it, etc and profit from the game you create.

You're not allowed to fork and then profit from the engine itself, or the editor. That's a really important distinction, and you're right that it should be highlighted.

But it seems very reasonable to me. Any real game dev won't care about that. Basically, you can't resell the engine, but you can do anything you want with the games created by it.

[kibbi]

"it goes out of its way to obscure the license terms"

They make the license terms very clear. Their license page highlights the differences to the text of the Apache 2.0 license. The only change is that you can't sell the engine itself. https://defold.com/license/

"intentionally deceptive" "there's a big fat nav item at the top of the site"

The Defold guys have released multiple components on Github with the MIT license. The fact that a navigation item is named "Open Source" does not say that all or most of the software from this company is Open Source. For example, the fact that the Apple developer site has a navigation item named "Open Source" similarly doesn't mean that all or most of Apple's software is Open Source.

"Everything about this screams"

You're attributing unverifiable negative intentions to the Defold developers.

This, the last HN thread about this, and other similar negative feedback create an incentive to avoid the term "Open Source" in order to steer clear of potential negative publicity for innocent misunderstandings and different opinions.

But they also have an incentive to keep the words "open source" in a sufficiently prominent position on their website to ensure that search engines list their page in the results for the search term "open source game engine", since it's a relevant result for almost all people who search for that term.

[cxr]

> You're attributing unverifiable negative intentions to the Defold developers.

I'm attributing motives to them based on their own admission—that they were misrepresenting their project. There's nothing unverifiable about it. They posted on HN and tweeted about it—their own words. It's not reaching on my part. (Why are you, like other commenters here, so attached to the plausible deniability angle? It's not available anymore. It's gone.)

> they also have an incentive to keep the words "open source" in a sufficiently prominent position on their website to ensure that search engines list their page in the results for the search term "open source game engine"

Uh...? Giving an accounting of the incentives isn't exculpatory.

Thieves have an incentive to take things that aren't theirs. Liars have an incentive to tell people things that aren't true. Cheaters have an incentive to have sex with someone who isn't their partner. We already know _why_ they want to do it. That wasn't ever in dispute.

> This, the last HN thread about this, and other similar negative feedback create an incentive to avoid the term "Open Source"

This is as baffling of a remark as the earlier one.

By "avoid the term" you mean "avoid misrepresenting the license under which they're really making the source code available".

Prosecuting murder is a form of negative feedback that discourages people from carrying out murder. This is known. It's not an unfortunate consequence. It's rather the whole point.

[imiric]

I think you're being too harsh.

The main item on the landing page says "free to use" and "source available", while that "big fat nav item", that doesn't show up on mobile without clicking on the navigation, clearly states:

> Defold is a source available game engine with a developer-friendly license derived from the popular Apache 2.0 License.

And under "Open source":

> A large selection of official and community developed open source extensions are available through the Asset Portal.

I think this is clear enough, and doesn't seem like they're abusing the open source terminology. Whether you agree or not with their license is another topic, but their copy seems clear to me (an OSS enthusiast and first-time visitor on their site).

That said, the title of this HN post is misleading, and definitely needs to be updated to reflect this.

[cxr]

> Everything about this screams, "We know exactly what we're doing, but we're going about it in such a way that we can claim plausible deniability."

(Feel free to address literally any of the pre-emptive points I made in my post, rather than responding as if I didn't already make them.)

[LanceH]

You could cut to the chase and point out what isn't open source. Also, if that source is available, you could point out which definition of open source you are going by.

Oh, and please don't say "the standard definition", because that is definitely contested, even after all these years.

[cxr]

> You could cut to the chase and point out what isn't open source.

That's easy: Defold (the project linked here).

> Also, if that source is available, you could point out which definition of open source you are going by.

That's easy, too: I'm using the same definition that the Defold developers are using.

[0xBA5ED]

Your objective points were addressed. Any response to your subjective point "Everything about this screams X" would itself be subjective and not conducive to productive conversation.

[cxr]

That the developers have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and called out on it and apologized once before (for, in their own words, "misrepresenting the license"), and they stated that they would/did remove the term "Open Source" from their site precisely in order to not confuse the issue...

... was, in fact, not addressed.

To the extent that my comment contains speculative claims, the charges are aligned with the developers' undisputed past behavior.

And given that it's blatantly obvious what's going on, even without their previous admission, no one has any obligation to pussyfoot around on things like giving the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt here—no reasonable doubt, at least. Only willful mendacity.

[dronodeath]

It is very clearly not open source nor is it claimed to be open source. They take great pains to explain their structure.

They are not being willfully mendacious. You are being willfully dickish.

[dang]

Please don't cross into personal attack or call names in arguments. We're trying for something different here, and you can make your substantive points without that.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[lemper]

to be actually honest, I tend to distrust anything that comes out of people who go out of their way to weasel their words like the maintainer of this project.