[valarauca1]

The Unreal Engine is free neither as beer, or freedom.

Its free as in a mob protection money is given freely, with a lot of strings attached.

Overall a very smart strategy. Free Software Walled Gardens I highly believe will start to become a common thing in the software industry. As you get most the benefits of Free Software, without the normally feared industry risks.

[drivingmenuts]

It's free enough for most hobbyist game developers, many of whom will never make enough (or anything at all, really) from their games to matter.

You want ideological purity? Go write your own system.

[vezzy-fnord]

"Ideological purity" is irrelevant. The point here is that people are abusing terminology to create ambiguity. As we are talking about software, the term "free" has specific connotations that differ from everyday language.

UE4 is a source-available, gratis game engine. This is fine. It is not open source, nor is it free or libre.

[zzalpha]

Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to:

- not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations

- given or available without charge

So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes.

Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No.

Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?

Yes.

[nightski]

Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.

[adventured]

It's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines.

You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word.

People whining about this are being ridiculous.

[nightski]

I wasn't whining. Just stating that it wasn't free - because it surely is not.

[fuzar]

It's conditionally free. If it were unconditionally free that would permit you to use the term without question or having people call bullshit. When they do call bullshit, which is to be expected, it's absurd to go around accusing them of whining and being ridiculous. Get a grip.

[vezzy-fnord]

not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations

Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license.

Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

When you're talking about software, you should not blame others for assuming "free" refers to the FSF definition, especially in announcements targeted towards technically inclined audiences.

[zzalpha]

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

Why would you say that?

I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".

[dragonwriter]

> I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

The OSI doesn't define "free" at all, it defines "open source" via the Open Source Definitions. The FSF defines "free software" via the Free Software Definition. Neither of these definitions restrict user freedoms, though the FSF tends to develop and promote licenses that arguably do so (the licenses the FSF's develops and promotes are not the only licenses it recognizes at fitting the Free Software Definition, which is pretty similar in substance to the OSI's Open Source Definition.)

[Dylan16807]

They don't restrict user freedom, they restrict distributor freedom with the goal of helping the user. This is a key distinction, because the end user can do anything whatsoever to the source code, no matter what the license wants.

[djur]

Since when does the OSI advocate for copyleft licenses, explicitly or otherwise? It was in fact founded -- and the term "open source" was coined -- in order to advocate for free software licensing separately from the FSF's ethical positions and promotion of copyleft.

[GhotiFish]

There seems to be a semantic argument going on here. As I see it, there are three terms at play

- "Open source"

- "Free"

- "Libre"

and again, as I see it, they all have mutually exclusive definitions. ie.

- the source is available to see and compile

- the project may be used without financial expense

- you may do with this project, and its source code, what you will (and personally I accept the restriction that you must preserve that right for others as not compromising this.)

under these definitions, I would now call the UE4 engine free and open source. I would not call it libre.

Do you object to any of these definitions?

[dragonwriter]

> Do you object to any of these definitions?

In this context, all of them (well, maybe not "Libre", for which you have an approximation of the usual definition.) The common combination "Free/Libre/Open source Software" phrase comes from three different names for approximately the same thing in Software:

(1) Free Software under the FSF's Free Software definition [0]

(2) Open Source Software under the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition [1]

(3) "Libre", a term sometimes used parenthetically to distinguish Free Software in the Free Software sense as discussed above from free-of-charge (gratis) software.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[1] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

[rblatz]

Only to a very specific, and small, group of people does the term free mean something besides it's commonly accepted meaning. You are attaching additional meaning to a word that already has meaning, and then complaining that people are creating ambiguity? Reminder this isn't Slashdot.

[drivingmenuts]

> "Ideological purity" is irrelevant. The point here is that people are abusing terminology to create ambiguity. As we are talking about software, the term "free" has specific connotations that differ from everyday language. UE4 is a source-available, gratis game engine. This is fine. It is not open source, nor is it free or libre.

OK, maybe it's better to call it "we're-not-gonna-be-a-dick-about-it" license.

[_nedR]

English is context-sensitive language. When reading "Unreal Engine 4 is now available to everyone for free" it was pretty clear to me (and I assume most people here) from the phrasing and context that they weren't releasing it in a copy-left license or even as open-source (Actually source code access is given).

Now if they had said "Unreal Engine is now available as free software" that would have been more confusing and misleading.

[davefp]

Whether or not you think it's free, UE4 is absolutely open source: https://www.unrealengine.com/ue4-on-github

[GhotiFish]

To be honest here. The strings that are attached are strings for people who want to sell...

Many open source projects do something like this, a dual license where the source code for the project is GPL, but the creator is willing to license it for something as non-gpl to people unwilling to release their source code.

This requirement set by unreal is very very analogous. They just have some shifted priorities, however for me this project now meets the standard of what I would consider "ethical".

Could it be better? Sure why not? It could be GPL dual license, people who want to benefit from open source but release closed source I think should have to pay, that would be better. However, this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives. This is fantastic.

That's my estimation of the situation anyway, you perhaps do not see it like this. Could you go further into your position?

[SXX]

>this library can now be effectively used for open source initiatives.

No it's can't be because UE4 is proprietary: http://opensource.org/osd

[GhotiFish]

??

... so?

What provision on that page would I violate if I made an FLOSS project based on UE4?

[psquid]

#2, "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Unreal's license for obtaining the source does not permit you to redistribute in source form, so you can't comply with their license and still fulfil that point.

While it's certainly trivial now for most anyone to obtain that source independently, you can't include that source in your own project while still distributing your own project under any license that the OSD would label as open source.

[SXX]

I think there would be huge problem to what count as "your own project source" as it's going to will hugely use UE4 code. So I posted my thoughts on licensing above.

[SXX]

Your project going to be derivative work from UE4. It's mean Epic of course allow you to share it's source code, but you can't grant any more right to 3rd parties than Epic grated to you.

So no way UE4-based project will be FLOSS or even open source.

[cwyers]

It's free as in beer, with the fine print putting a limit on the free beer you get before you're either cut off or have to start buying your own beer. It's like going to a wedding reception and claiming that the open bar is a lie because they stop serving at midnight.

[tootie]

It's free as in a bank loan with no time frame for repayment.

[vamur]

It's a positive development, not sure the negative comments. 5% is chump change if a game is successfull. The engine is also open source (so no hidden malware), runs on Linux and WebGL.

[hollerith]

>The engine is also open source

I think you mean the source code is available (i.e., anyone can download it), which is different from its coming with an open-source license, which is what most people mean by "open source".

[pantalaimon]

No, what you mean is Free Software

[vetinari]

No, it's not Open Source either: http://opensource.org/osd

[nulltype]

I think microsoft calls this "Shared Source"

[benologist]

At $3000/product/quarter it will also be completely free for many indie game and app developers while they try and build something people want.

[protomyth]

Many game developers will be smiling if they have to write that quarterly check.

[Shorel]

I have always believed that the base operating system, and general libraries should be Libre, but individual applications should not need to be restricted this way.

This brings the best of both worlds. Freedom in the foundations, and an incentive to have real innovation in end user apps.

But patents and copyrights should expire after ten years.

[venomsnake]

If you use it for non commercial purposes it is free enough.

[ctdonath]

It's "free" as in "fair share". You'd spend decades rebuilding something that complex - and you're welcome to do it yourself if you won't give fair reimbursement to those who did and let you use their work with no entry cost.