I just thought I would run this by the forums to see what the general feeling would be on a Unity3D license aimed at open source groups/projects.
First why I am making this thread/suggestion -
I am very pro unity but I am very pro open source as well. Not all open source projects can get access to awesome tools like Unity Pro due to financial limitations. So usually open source projects roll their own engine/tech or use a competitors tech.
Here is what I am suggesting -
Unity technologies makes a low cost non commercial license for open source projects and foundations.
Basically it entails Unity Pro but with some restrictions on how it can be used. (Non Commercial)
If you do not want Unity Pro for your Open source project/foundation that is fine. Just use Unity Free.
What I am saying -
Opens up (not in the source code sense) Unity3D pro to those who would not be able to afford it otherwise for their open source project/foundation.
What I am NOT saying -
Unity3D opens up their source code vaults and gives us everything.
What would you think about this?
Do you think that this would help the community and Unity3D grow in a positive sense?
What a stupid idea… you can’t just give the source away to everyone. I’m sure that it would just get out to the public the way it is now I’d say it is very strictly looked after and if it did get out the companies that have the source would be in deep trouble. It would be hard to keep that if it was to anyone with some money.
I was thinking about the this OSS version too (and would be happy to have it), but I don’t think it will happen. How would they restrict your usage of unity ONLY to OSS? Maybe some personal license for given HW only, but then you could also use it for other (proprietary) projects, not only the OSS. Maybe some time limited version?
Unnecessary. There is a free version of unity, so price isn’t an issue. If you need pro, you can buy it. If you can’t afford it, you don’t need it. Wanting and needing are two different things. Additionally, there are already many open source projects including Torque and others, so again, there is no need, just a desire.
And most importantly, open source projects are based on a closed source core element is pretty much a contradiction. It defeats the purpose. What is the point of having an open source project if the core element (the game engine) is a closed source commercial product with a special licence? It goes against the whole point of open source, as the project would be dependent on UT continuing to offer that licence and supporting it. I would say that any “group” or “foundation” wanting or desiring to use a non-open source engine is just people screwing around in the first place and destined to be unmaintained wiki page/blog in a few months time. Anyone actually seriously committed to the core concepts and ideals behind OSS wouldn’t consider this an option in the first place. Anyone who would are just part of the “me want free stuff” crowd and don’t understand OSS.
If a person or group wants do a free type project based on Unity free now and use a CC type licence for the project files they can do it right now with no problem, obviously they can’t do an open source project as the engine is not, but the results are the same. UT has a nice system as it stands, no distinction between commercial and non-commercial, and a no cost solution with no restrictions, just less features. Adding additional options like commercial/non-commercial and other complexities of won’t benefit UT or users, as it will cost them more to manage/produce that type of thing, (resources that could be used elsewhere), for the sole purpose of giving away their primary source of revenue to groups that wouldn’t be a customer in the first place? No part part of that makes any business sense. A current Unity free customer at least has the potential become a pro user in the future as they grow. A non-commercial open source project doesn’t represent a realistic potential sale, just a another avenue to support.
I don’t think that OSS using proprietary tools/framework is contradiction. Open source means that I’m opening the sources and anyone could build the software if it has appropriate tools. I doesn’t mean that full ecosystem must be opened. It is perfectly reasonable to make OSS game in unity; You publish the source of the game, content, etc. Then anyone could build, change, modify this game with unity. That’s the point of open source project IMHO.
True, that is why I specified the “project” and said “CC type”. Certainly just releasing free or adding your own licence (that doesn’t contradict existing unity eula) is probably a better option. Unity projects(scripts/models/etc), are really just assets specific to Unity.
Sure, It is not uncommon for an OSS project to utilize or require some elements/libraries/frameworks that are closed source. In those cases, typically, those elements are still modular and therefore replaceable. However, a game or project using Unity is 100% dependent on Unity. You can’t replace or take out the Unity project and still have the project. Some of the core ideals behind OSS is not being dependent on a single vendor, security, flexibility and for projects to exist and grow. If you try classify a game project as OSS, it would fail to meet most of the criteria that defines OSS. There is no security oversight, that is all in the hands of Unity, it isn’t truly flexible in any real sense, since you don’t actually have access to core engine features. Interoperability, longevity, all the other things that give OSS its value don’t apply. And at the simplest level, you don’t have access to source code, only assets and scripts that are used by the Unity Engine. What you are left with is free content. Which isn’t bad, and certainly value in sharing that and having multiple people working on and benefiting from some aspects that OSS brings, ultimately it can’t really be OSS itself.
Imagine this, you create a group/project to collaboratively work on a Unity game to be delivered via Flash. As >4 versions of Unity will not support this, your project is dead due to choices made by a single vendor. Because you have no actual source, there is no way this project can continue. That is a huge part of OSS, not being dependent on a single person/vendor.
Again, sharing and collaborating is a wonderful thing. It’s just not OSS, as OSS is philosophy that is much more than just those, and one where a Unity project by itself fails to meet virtually every other defining element except those two.
You have no open-source GPL or MPL project under your care. Why don’t you code and show that you have one available FIRST before you ask for a discount? Will you be doing more open-source work after you get your discounted license?
You can easily earn back the amount to pay for your copy of Unity3D. You can use the Unity3D free and deliver scripts under work for hire.
The key is optimisation of your terrain and assets. You can get a good game working in Unity3D free if you keep your poly count and coding efficient.
If you are like one of those developers who makes 5 million poly terrain and 200,000 poly models and greatly need to use pro features - occlusion culling, or need to use advanced special effects to hide bad models, Unity3D pro will not help you. No amount of occlusion culling and effects will help you overcome the slowness unless you optimize your assets.
Unity Free is not cheap enough though. They should pay me to use their engine. Think about it, it will help so many people if everyone gave me everything I wanted.
I don’t understand how this point makes any sense.
If you are creating a free and open source game that uses the Unity engine, you aren’t going to be making ANY money to easily earn back the cost of Unity Pro. Because, you know, that game you are making is free and won’t earn you any money. Where does work for hire fit in with a free, non-commerical, open source project where no money is involved at all?
