[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.