Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Terrcraft

BREAKING NEWS MICROSOFT BUYS ZENIMAX MEDIA FOR 7.5 BILLION

Recommended Posts

Now that id's under Microsoft, would it finally be possible to re-license the classic idTech engines under something like MIT? Even ten years ago this would be even more of a pipe dream, but a key part of Satya Nadella's tenure as Microsoft CEO has been open sourcing various bits and bobs of code/Windows tech under MIT, as a means of adding greater Unix compatibility to draw customers away from Apple. Carmack seems to want to come back, so I don't see why not.

Share this post


Link to post

That still isn't going to happen for a long time; still need to replace the remaining non-Microsoft parts of the engine. Once that happens, it's a matter of time before Microsoft releases their proprietary code.

Share this post


Link to post

I meant id re-licensing the already open-sourced 90s engines (Doom and Quake 1-3) from GPL to MIT. The versions of the source Carmack released were based on the Linux versions, weren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mammajamma said:

I meant id re-licensing the already open-sourced 90s engines (Doom and Quake 1-3) from GPL to MIT. The versions of the source Carmack released were based on the Linux versions, weren't they?

I don't want game engines like Doom to be MIT-licensed; because it would get us in the same situation as Wolf3D.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

I don't want game engines like Doom to be MIT-licensed; because it would get us in the same situation as Wolf3D.

This. The GPL is a wonderful thing, why would anyone want to be kneecapped by anything lesser?

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Blastfrog said:

This. The GPL is a wonderful thing, why would anyone want to be kneecapped by anything lesser?

 

Because of compatibility issues with other open source licenses. Not every programmer is happy with GPL, especially GPL3. It's far less permissive than other ones.

Share this post


Link to post

What advantage does mit have over GPL? Given people have made actual commercial games using gzdoom for instance it's difficult to see an advantage at first look.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cybdmn said:

Because of compatibility issues with other open source licenses. Not every programmer is happy with GPL, especially GPL3. It's far less permissive than other ones.

For large non-library projects, GPLv3 is appropriate.

For large library projects, LGPL is appropriate.

For small library projects, BSD/MIT is the perfect choice.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather see open sourcing of more stuff than re-licensing of already open-sourced stuff.

 

And especially open sourcing of ZeniMax's non-id old stuff.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, really, I'd very much like to see more open-sourcing rather than relicensing stuff that already went open-source...

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

For large non-library projects, GPLv3 is appropriate.

For large library projects, LGPL is appropriate.

For small library projects, BSD/MIT is the perfect choice.

 

There is no perfect choice. The world is much more complex than your comment may suggest. 

Share this post


Link to post

You also have AGPL which forces publishing the server-side source code for server software.

The choice mainly depends on how much they want to allow third parties to use that code for proprietary closed source products. Or whether they want to be able to take back code contributed by others and include them into proprietary versions of the engines they release in the future.

 

A large library project can perfectly choose to go GPL instead of LGPL if the intention is for it to be used only in open source projects and not be mixed up with closed source or more permissively licensed software.

 

I think the only reason to go for MIT/BSD/Apache is to allow the integration of that code back into proprietary products. It's up to the licenser to decide whether they want to allow that. Personally I think GPL (and AGPL for server software) is the most community-friendly. It might not be the most permissive, the one that gives more freedom to entrepreneurs or the easiest to monetize, but it's the one that incentivizes the open distribution of source code the most since it makes impossible (legally) for someone to modify it without contributing the changes back to the community.

Edited by Ferk

Share this post


Link to post

With Microsoft it's very simple. Either Bethesda / ZeniMax will be golden mine for them or it will be defunded and discontinued along with respective franchises. See this list. Embrace, extend, and extinguish. Never otherwise. I am surprised that such practices have not been banned by Federal antitrust laws long time ago. Well, good luck.

Share this post


Link to post

There was some antitrust stuff against Microsoft.   Then Bush&Cheney were elected and *poof* it went away.   Antitrust laws are practically null & void anymore.   They may still be on the books but no one is enforcing them.

 

The Disney Fox merger is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

Edited by Gokuma

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, cybdmn said:

There is no perfect choice. The world is much more complex than your comment may suggest. 

 

True, but I think they're correct in the broad strokes.  If you're writing a library, you are essentially trying to help solve other developer's problems, in which case a more permissive license is fine because we're developers helping developers and we're all in this together.


Finished software, on the other hand, the calculus is much trickier.  If you're doing it for the love of it, then fantastic, use whatever license strikes your fancy.  However, if you ever have the expectation that what you're creating might be valuable, or even that you might want to start a business around your open source software, then I think that a permissive license would be an incredibly foolish choice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LiT_gam3r said:

at one point, weren't the games only on Microsoft computers?

Until recently (relatively speaking), Microsoft didn't make computers.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, thewormofautumn said:

Lmao get out of the 90s.

People still raging at Microsoft for the company they WERE decades ago

 

Why? Different date, same company. Corporate shit is still the same. Only reason why internet isn't called Microsoft Internet is because it can't be bought.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Cacodemon345 said:

I believe he meant the PC computers.

Or IBM or IBM-compatible was the old term.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Cacodemon345 said:

I believe he meant the PC computers.

I did. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, AnotherGrunt said:

 

Why? Different date, same company. Corporate shit is still the same. Only reason why internet isn't called Microsoft Internet is because it can't be bought.


Not even the same. Mostly all the people who made the company what it was then are gone. Seriously, how long do you want to hold a grudge.

 

the 90s brosef... the 90s

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, AnotherGrunt said:

Why? Different date, same company. Corporate shit is still the same. Only reason why internet isn't called Microsoft Internet is because it can't be bought.

 

Microsoft have more competition now. After browsing some websites for a laptop, I keep getting ads for bloody Chromebooks. I fucking hate the very idea of them, but they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/24/2020 at 12:19 PM, Cacodemon345 said:

For large non-library projects, GPLv3 is appropriate.

For large library projects, LGPL is appropriate.

For small library projects, BSD/MIT is the perfect choice. 

 

I agree with the first and third point. For non-library code GPL is normally fine - unless, of course if someone decides to release their code under the GPLv2 without upgrade clause, because that would be a two-stage blocker, not only can the code not be used in a closed environment (which is the intended goal of the license) but also blocks use of add-ons that are GPLv3.

 

But the second point is debatable. It totally depends on what the library is made for. Even LGPL comes with so many strings attached that it may be too restrictive, e.g. you cannot use such a library in common smartphone apps and most corporate outfits see it just as toxic as the full GPL.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 4:45 PM, AnotherGrunt said:

Why? Different date, same company. Corporate shit is still the same. Only reason why internet isn't called Microsoft Internet is because it can't be bought.

 

Isn't this getting old? These days Apple is far more toxic with their walled garden infrastructure and continuing withdrawal from open standards. Microsoft has changed a lot since Steve Ballmer left.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/25/2020 at 12:23 AM, Gokuma said:

The Disney Fox merger is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post

Aha I just spotted this in my YouTube recommended section.

 

 

While I am still of the same opinion that I'd rather not have giant conglomerates own everything, Microsoft's hands-off approach to the game development studios they've acquired over the years is a great deal more promising than EA's know reputation or if Activision/Blizzard or Ubisoft got their hands on 'em. Also, another upside of this acquisition that Jim Sterling pointed out recently is that Microsoft may tug hard on ZeniMax's leash and stop their nasty habit of bullying other game studios and constantly filing frivilous lawsuits; like the time they threatened to sue one developer over their game because they'd dared to call it, "Scrolls" as if people would actually confuse it with Elder Scrolls, the bastards.

Edited by Biodegradable

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×