| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Closed-source scene tools
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, being tickled every now and then.
So, why exactly do we get excellent tools once in a while, but which happen to be closed-source (and often for a specific OS, but that's only a side-issue), subject to inevitable bit-rot once their creators invariably lose interest or worse, among other problems?
My personal head canon says it's likely a combination of
1) being embarrassed of dirty code
2) not wanting other people to take snippets of code (and possibly pass them off as their own)
3) not wanting other people to modify the program to suit their needs (and possibly distribute it)
4) "I'll take my knowledge to the grave, suckers"
List is probably incomplete, but anyways, would like to hear yours' opinions on this. =) |
|
... 41 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
trident
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 79 |
Quote: I get why people are hesitant. You put the time and effort into creating something, release the thing source and all, then come back a few months later to find someone's lifted it, reworked it a little bit, promoted the hell out of themselves, and is now applauded as the genius "inventor" of the thing. Years later your original version of the thing is routinely dismissed as somehow a derivative of theirs. I'd imagine the "everyone's a celebrity" era is probably producting *more*, not *less* of these experiences.
But... it's important to set those individual frustrations aside and consider what's best for the community as a whole - and that's open source everything.
in my experience, it is completely the other way around: the original author tends to get way more credit than anyone that continue working on the software.
this happens both when someone takes over as maintainer or developer of an existing project or if someone tries to actively "steal" the limelight. the original author usually keeps getting credit for the software, year after year.
so i'm not refuting your comment (i agree that this fear may cause people to avoid releasing software as open source), i'm just providing additional support for your conclusion. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1051 |
Quoting spider-jThat said @Burglar if you're reading this: please switch your png2prg repository to public or add source code snapshots to your releases. I really don't want this great tool to be lost. thanks :) and no worries spider, will publish sources in the mid term, it is planned.
for me, keeping source closed is primarily a pride thing. I want people to see my sources and say, "oh nice, I totally understand what's going on and I can totally use this in my own projects".
since my c64 related tools tend to grow organically and I learn the language as I go, lots of bad decisions are made.
refactor time vs new features vs available time vs pride.
my published sources can be found here btw: https://github.com/staD020/ |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 629 |
I appreciate things like demo and intro sources as I just don't know how a lot of stuff is done and it's easier to understand than trying to reverse engineer it. Especially stuff with math that I'm admittedly not very good at.
I can identify with what Six said... I've had people accuse me of stealing their "ideas" for fixing bugs in games, when the bugs are publicly known, or even have fixed them years before they were even around before and updated the fix to use more modern code or functions. It's a very off putting thing.
Burglar, that reminds me of the vertical sprite bar intro you made you wanted me to fix, and even with the source code I couldn't figure out what you were doing! Hah. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
Quoting Burglarfor me, keeping source closed is primarily a pride thing. I want people to see my sources and say, "oh nice, I totally understand what's going on and I can totally use this in my own projects".
I can understand that. I also usually start my projects repositories on a private git on my local server and only switch to a public github repository once I find my code somewhat "readable" for others.
But I think readability is not only about how "clean" the code is, but also how similar your own coding style is to the one you're looking at. I.e. I have no doubt that the loader code by Krill is presented in a good, clean coding style, but I do understand almost nothing when I look at it. On the other hand I have zero problems to understand any code written by Bitbreaker.
In those cases it might even start with the choice of assembler beeing used: ca65, which I don't use vs. acme, which I do use.
Even in my day to day job where I usually have to write extensions to Open Source software there are packages where it's super easy for me to work with and understand their internal workflow and in which case to use which API and other packages where everything seems a confusing mess to me but may be completely transparent for someone else.
So I guess you can't really expect your own code beeing perfectly readable for "everyone". |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Quoting spider-jI.e. I have no doubt that the loader code by Krill is presented in a good, clean coding style, but I do understand almost nothing when I look at it. On the other hand I have zero problems to understand any code written by Bitbreaker. Please, i do and did not only write loaders (and release the sources). :)
Anyways, do you also directly understand Bitfire's source code when looking at it?
Ultimately, the main point is not that anyone looking into released sources can understand them, but that the tools can be built from them and the code be changed and enhanced by anyone (understanding it).
And i was mostly referring to tools for modern platforms in the OP. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11150 |
And then someone invents toggleplexing and you guys don't appreciate his work :( |
| |
Stone
Registered: Oct 2006
Posts: 170 |
Quoting chatGPZAnd then someone invents toggleplexing and you guys don't appreciate his work :(
"If you take the life-lie from an average man, you take away his happiness as well" - Henrik Ibsen / The Wild Duck |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1382 |
If only the toggleplexer had released source :'( |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Please stay on topic, and that's sources to neither demos nor games nor anything 6502, actually. =) |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
Quoting KrillPlease, i do and did not only write loaders (and release the sources). :)
I know, but I can only talk about things I have actually looked at :-)
Quoting KrillAnyways, do you also directly understand Bitfire's source code when looking at it?
No of course not. But still his general "style" is closer to what I'm used to what makes it way easier to work through.
Quoting KrillUltimately, the main point is not that anyone looking into released sources can understand them, but that the tools can be built from them and the code be changed and enhanced by anyone (understanding it).
Yes, but one of Burglars argument for keeping his sources closed (at least for some time) was the own set standard that you want your code to be somewhat "good", "readable" etc. before you release it to the public.
And I just wanted to say, that this is difficult to decide. Because what's easy readable and adaptable for one must not be for the other (doesn't really matter which kind of software or language). So these thoughts maybe shouldn't hinder you to release your sources.
Oh, and I thought the focus of the topic was more on the "why keep stuff closed source?" side in general (extending your initial 4 points) than on the specifically "speaking about C64 crossdev PC tools" side :-) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
