Source SDK 2013(github.com)
github.com
Source SDK 2013
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013
13 comments
I give it four hours until someone decides they aren't satisfied and starts bitching that it wasn't released under the GPL
The actual problem is that the license they are using is neither a valid free software license nor a valid open source license. The GPL would honestly be their best option if they wished to build a bigger community around Source engine modding, but I doubt that will ever happen.
No, it would not be, as the GPL would eliminate the core sentence of their current license:
> You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified Valve game running on the Source engine. You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code form, but only for free.
This would be prohibited by the GPL, as it eliminates fundamental freedoms (the right to sell the product).
This sentence is (obviously) very important to Valves ecosystem.
> You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified Valve game running on the Source engine. You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code form, but only for free.
This would be prohibited by the GPL, as it eliminates fundamental freedoms (the right to sell the product).
This sentence is (obviously) very important to Valves ecosystem.
The GPL does not eliminate the right to sell the product.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.en
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.en
[deleted]
[deleted]
#define JEEP_SEAGULL_POOP_INTERVAL 45.0 // Interval between checks for seagull poopage
yes
yes
This is an amazing step forward for the Open Source community, good on you Valve, you've proven you're in it for the long run.
I'm pretty sure this is their previously released SDK (though a new release for 2013) which is already available through Steam. What's new here is that they've put it up on GitHub.
This code is not open source.
http://opensource.org/docs/osd It seems to satisfy 1-7
From point 1 of the OSD
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code
form, but only for free.
I never said it was?
Then how exactly is this an "Amazing step forward for the Open Source community"
I don't know many other popular commercial games with their up to date code based on GitHub.
By posting Source source, it opens up learning opportunities for new developers and all other sorts of BS.
For example, the way they do their sphericals didn't occur to me and for my next project I'll know better...
By posting Source source, it opens up learning opportunities for new developers and all other sorts of BS.
For example, the way they do their sphericals didn't occur to me and for my next project I'll know better...
It's not the game code. It's just a mod development kit which has been available forever. This is just the latest version uploaded on GitHub. Not much of interest here.
Do you want a truly open game company?
Take a look at iD. THAT is Open. Many FLOSS games would be nothing without iD. John Carmack is the man. He releases actual engine code (not SDKs) and under GPL license!
And that guy truly revolutionized 3d graphics (though iD's latest games are not very appealing to me) and instead of keeping the techniques as industrial secrets he releases his knowledge[1].
Seriously. Carmack is awesome.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail
Do you want a truly open game company?
Take a look at iD. THAT is Open. Many FLOSS games would be nothing without iD. John Carmack is the man. He releases actual engine code (not SDKs) and under GPL license!
And that guy truly revolutionized 3d graphics (though iD's latest games are not very appealing to me) and instead of keeping the techniques as industrial secrets he releases his knowledge[1].
Seriously. Carmack is awesome.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail
This comparison is flawed.
Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed.
Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.
Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed.
Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.
So Valve released Half-Life 1's source code? I'd love to give it a read.
Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available.
I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all.
Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available.
I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all.
Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
It is true that GoldSrc is not released and Valve is (technology-wise) not an "open company" at all and I don't oppose that. Also, I wrote that the (ID) engines are closed while still sold for licensing - that has nothing to do with whether the old games are still available. The assets and levels are not free after all, so this just gives you the ability to buy those.
I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company.
A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company.
A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
Sorry, I misinterpreted the licensing bit.
I guess you have a valid point.
Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve.
I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.
I guess you have a valid point.
Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve.
I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.
I agree on that. It is just that in my opionion, strong wording with regards to software freedom should be reserved to those that practice it.
In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community.
It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply.
Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html
For ID, using assets is not regulated.
Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.
In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community.
It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply.
Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html
For ID, using assets is not regulated.
Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.
And the source for Doom 3 BFG was released and that was not long after release at all, and it has components for the newer unreleased in it as well.
It's certainly nice that you can study this code freely, but that isn't a good reason for anyone to use it. The restriction stating that "you can only use this to make mods of valve games" seems particularly ridiculous. For indie developers, there are plenty of free (as in freedom) replacements that are probably better to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_...
For one, a properly free game engine will allow you to develop actual games, not just Half Life and Team Fortress mods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_...
For one, a properly free game engine will allow you to develop actual games, not just Half Life and Team Fortress mods.
This code is not a "game engine", let alone a properly free one. It's an SDK specifically to make mods for the Source engine. It only has the code to build mod DLLs, not the main engine source code.
It would be nice that README would hold more information than the license. Maybe link to this https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SDK2013_GettingStar... if the wiki is a better place to hold the information.
Press Release: http://store.steampowered.com/news/10962/
> We have released an update to the Source SDK, bringing support for Mac OS X and Linux to mod developers and exposing the ability for virtual reality support in your mod.
> We have released an update to the Source SDK, bringing support for Mac OS X and Linux to mod developers and exposing the ability for virtual reality support in your mod.
Looks like some of the SSE work in the mathlib directory is unimplemented or unverified in POSIX environments, or else implemented only in C. Not sure how crucial or not that would be in the big picture of things though.
I'm sure it'd be fun to play with, but the license makes it a non-starter for any serious work.
I'm sure it'd be fun to play with, but the license makes it a non-starter for any serious work.
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013/blob/master...
This seems to be some HL2EP1 specific stuff in there X'D
This seems to be some HL2EP1 specific stuff in there X'D
This new release seems to have support for Linux and OS X, which is a new addition to the Source SDK. Previously you've only been able to use mods on Windows. This might be enough to get me back into modding for a bit.
Can I use it withought any steam game?
From the license:
You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified
Valve game running on the Source engine.
now to patiently wait for viva64 guy to do a src code review.
This isn't a game engine or a game; It's just the SDK for modders.
And this, gentlemen, is why you always read the fucking license.
Awful.
Awful.
Yah, it is so terrible that valve would release something for free to those who could not pay, but would not supply the ingredients for a commercial effort without some consideration. What scumbags.
This is great. Now we are free to help remove dependencies, improve this engine and in the long run hopefully help Valve take further steps into being a more Open Company , I hope that Valve change the license once they are in a position to do so. They are in a staggeringly odd turn of events starting to 'Open Up ' and working within the view of the outside public on a number of high profile software projects. They are making good moves, I for one intend to encourage them to make more by helping! Pull requests to help them will make them realize they will gain more if the engine is even more open, its a matter of time.
And specifically to the people complaining about the license file https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013/blob/master... . The likely reason that it cannot at this time be changed will probably be the legal agreements Valve has signed regarding the stuff you will read if you open up one of the other files up in the root of the repo thirdpartylegalnotices.txt https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013/blob/master...
Edit--- It looks like people are already hacking away and fixing stuff! https://github.com/AnAkIn1/source-sdk-2013/commit/fe2fa2204b...
And specifically to the people complaining about the license file https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013/blob/master... . The likely reason that it cannot at this time be changed will probably be the legal agreements Valve has signed regarding the stuff you will read if you open up one of the other files up in the root of the repo thirdpartylegalnotices.txt https://github.com/ValveSoftware/source-sdk-2013/blob/master...
Edit--- It looks like people are already hacking away and fixing stuff! https://github.com/AnAkIn1/source-sdk-2013/commit/fe2fa2204b...
Open company? What the...?
This is just an SDK. It's for their own convenience! You make mods for their closed source Source engine (see what I did there?) and they earn tons of money and Steam users.
What's Open about that? How are you going to remove the Source dependency?
Game companies have been releasing SDKs since what feels like forever.
I love Valve's games, but you have to give credit where it's due.
This is just an SDK. It's for their own convenience! You make mods for their closed source Source engine (see what I did there?) and they earn tons of money and Steam users.
What's Open about that? How are you going to remove the Source dependency?
Game companies have been releasing SDKs since what feels like forever.
I love Valve's games, but you have to give credit where it's due.
This is just the mod SDK, it isn't the Source engine code.
You can't do anything with this code without Source.