OpenSource & Torque

#1 Yes, you're forgetting that the GG guys have to LIVE from the money they make with this really cheap license...
if they would only charge money for commercial use, they wouldn't have made a single cent yet (cause there are no commercial projects yet), GG would be dead and you wouldn't even have a forum to post this question... :p

#2 I acknowledged this... Indeed, if Garage Games is living on $100 Torque licenses... obviously that is preemptive...

There are always options:

I (and perhaps others) would be willing to pay a monthly access fee or make a donation to free the sources... something like what is going on at www.blender3d.com ... right... now...

OpenSource is a valid business model... Torque is a likely candidate...

-J

#3 Hi!

I think the only possibility to make Torque an open-source project would be when games started getting done and ready for the market, because then they might be able to make a living out of the percentage cut they get from the resales.

Then it might make more sense to make it an open-source project, because that way more people would be able to work on their projects. Of course, a lot of people will probably amount to doing nothing, but still, it opens up the market *way* more.

Just my thoughts, though. That's what I would've done.

#4 Josh-

You say:

OpenSource is a valid business model...

Can you provide a couple cases where opensource has worked for a company as a business model? I can't think of a single opensource based company that is not having financial problems. Even redhat is having revenue problems.

J

#5 Josh,

We are not selling enough Torque at $100 to make a living. However, we are selling enough to pay office rent, insurance, and bandwidth. While we have been able to "volunteer" our time and efforts, we could not kick in the expenses of the site and infrastructure too.

However, we have considered open sourcing Torque and may do so at some time in the future if other sources of revenue become viable. I don't know about the statement that open source is a viable business model, but I do agree that it can be a useful method of making a difference. If you have another source of income, then making that difference can lead to many good things.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#6 Though this comment follows yours Jeff it isn't a response... I was writing it simultaneously :)

OpenSource is not freeware...

The more people using a technology the more opportunity there is for commercial exploitation... I already mentioned an interesting model: www.mysql.com/press/release_2002_03.html

Garage Games stands to make money from any use of the technology commercially, educationally, or governmentally... there are domains Torque would find it's way into that are difficult to surmise...

Allow me to repeat this, in terms of lost revenue: I (and perhaps others) would be willing to pay a monthly access fee or make a donation to free the sources... something like what is going on at www.blender3d.com ... right... now...

OpenSource is a blanket term, there is a permutation that fits... and it can be profitable... probably moreso than snagging a tiny license fee from a small segment of game makers?

Another note: What are the implications of using Torque with a LGPL library? If Torque is used to extend such a library, and these modifications need to be published... can they?

It's all about making Garage Games and Torque better... gaining developers... opening avenues... you know, world domination kind of stuff :)

-J

#7 There are some people making money off of Open Souce. Check out The JBoss Group www.jboss.org. The offer an open source J2EE application server and make money off consulting. It may not work for Torque, but it seems to be working for them. BTW, JBoss is an EXCELLENT product!

#8 Hey josh, is this about the beyond issue?

#9 One of the major stumbling blocks to Open Source is that it isn't a business plan, it's inherently an anti-business plan. Now, that said, there's no reason money can't be made using an Open Source development model.

If you're going to try and make money with a business plan that centers around an Open Source product, you need to be able to provide one of a few different things. Support has been the traditional one that companies like RedHat and the other Linux vendors have tried, but with the typical Linux user being just as happy to provide support to well-phrased and researched questions as any company they won't really be too likely to make the killing everyone expected. There was too much hype and not nearly enough demand.

Torque isn't something that can really work as an Open Source product. The people here at GarageGames definitely need to have an income flow, which an Open Source Torque just wouldn't be able to provide them. The best likely avenue for Torque as an Open Source product would be a special non-commercial license. Unfortunately, this would run the risk of being abused and the legal staff needed by GG would probably eclipse the entire operating cost of the company as it currently exists. And yes, this is a wild-ass-guess.

In my opinion, the best thing GG can do to maximize both exposure and profit from Torque is what they're doing now. Even though I wish it were easier to see what Torque provided in a more summarized format, I think the overall business plan works and can continue to work. When the time comes that there are some commercial quality games bringing profit to GarageGames, then it'll be a lot easier to look at other options.

I'm just hoping that someone familiar with Torque's handling of models and objects will snare the Blender code once that gets released as Open Source, and make a native export mode for that modeller. It might not be the best program out there, but the price absolutely can't be beat.

#10 @Joel - Beyond is a good example... a group of HIGHLY talented developers, who won't touch Torque because of the license... and who still might not if it didn't allow (free) commercial exploitation... but that is their problem, and would be, in my opinion, a very poor choice...

OpenSource does NOT mean any one thing... you can draft an original license or use an existing one... as long as you have the rights to what you are OpenSourcing...

If it best for GG to make a number of $100.00 sales currently, then good... this doesn't cancel out discussion or make the idea invalid... Opening Torque would do good things for the engine... this cannot be disputed...

The real money is in applications which commercially exploit Torque, under the current license OR under a different one... OpenSource increases the likelyhood of these applications(notice I am not saying GAMES) being created... as it would dramatically increase the number of people working with the engine...

I'll ask flat out... what is the projected cash flow on Torque access fees for the next year?

-J

#11 Good things for the engine, bad things for the community and for the founders of GG. I highly doubt the GG founders want to go back to being code monkeys for some money hungry share holders.

#12 How does making Torque better hurt GG and the community? Interesting line to draw...

All the comparisons to Linux are a bit off base... that is an OS and not a cross-platorm, multipurpose, library/engine...

Let's see... in my case, I may not spend any more $$$ on Torque if it isn't (moving towards) OpenSource... if there was a drive similar to something like what Blender is doing... I have $500.00 for the cause... and yup, if no one else believes as I do... that $500.00 doesn't go very far...

There are people that WON'T pay the $100 access fee... but WOULD if Torque was at least moving towards being open...

There are options... no one is trying to roast GG on a spit... and there is no spoon...

-J

#13 Well, as anti-anarchist as this will sound, I'd almost pay $100 to ensure it stays "closed".

So far I haven't been able to even see good reason to open it--except to have less input from the GG gang and a longer dev process.

I realize you theorize that more people will give for the greater good--whether as money or improvements on the engine -- but I don't think that's a realistic outlook. Blender must have quite a cult following as I haven't spoken to anyone yet who can use the thing.

You'd be surprised how many "wannabees" (meaning not serious) people just that little $100 would weed out. If you really must have the code or access to dev forums... $100.

We need to stop looking at Garage Games like it's a huge corporation just champing at the bit to get our money, and look at it for what it is: a few guys trying to help a few other guys and in the meantime hopefully make a buck.
And you can quote me on that. ;-)

#14 Actually, Josh, the fact that Torque is not open source is only one of several reasons why Beyond isn't using it as a reference implementation. There are quite a number of other reasons.

#15 The money really isn't the point... I don't even think we are talking about that much...

Whatever Garage Games does with the license is their business... I have an opinion as probably do most people... you can't be all things to all people...

Garage Games obviously has sound leadership and goals... if OpenSource makes sense for them, I have little doubt as to it's incorporation...

I do wonder about my LGPL question however:

What are the implications of using Torque with a LGPL library? If Torque is used to extend such a library, and these modifications need to be published... can they?

I haved used LGPL code in our games in the past... is this a non-option with Torque?

-J

#16 I thought the whole point of LGPL was that you weren't obligated to publish the code for anything beyond what was LGPL'd in the first place.

#17 As far as I know, if you use Torque code in the LGPL licensed library, you're violating the Torque license.

However, if you do the reverse and modify some LGPL code and use that in Torque, as long as you release -only- the LGPLed component back out as open source, without any of the code that came from Torque, it's clear.

#18 Actually, you're -never- obligated to publish code that has a GPL piece of code attached to it. You're only obligated to put up modifications you make to the specific GPL component.

For example, OpenAL code is what works with Torque. Because Torque has OpenAL in it, that doesn't mean the Torque code is what Microsoft would want you to call "tainted". There's been a lot of FUD about things like that.

What the LGPL does, basically, is say you don't have to redistribute your code changes at all.

#19

Quote:What are the implications of using Torque with a LGPL library? If Torque is used to extend such a library, and these modifications need to be published... can they?

In the case of using an LGPL library, Torque would be using the library, not vice versa. You could create a Torque class that would access a shared library, adding any functionality as needed. Can you give an example of where you'd have to add Torque code to an external library? Isn't that antithetical to modular design? IANAL, but it's violating the Torque license to put its code into a public library.

#20 my 2 cents on this open sourced crap....