Jump to content

Torque 3D 3.9 Released


Recommended Posts

C# is dangerous: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/29/richard_stallman_cautions_against_mono_in_free_software/

It may be open source, but it may also turn out as a trap, since Microsoft was always hostile to free software and very likely always will be.

T3D's main strength is the open source part and if you risk that, it is a potential suicide move.

 

You are joining to an article which describes speculations about how a 3rd party c# implementation might be shut down by Microsoft, which 7 years later hasn't happened and are using that as an argument why Microsoft hates free software? I don't get it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more to it, I just posted it as an example.


If you want more proofs here:


https://github.com/mono/mono/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT


and here:


http://www.mono-project.com/docs/faq/licensing/

https://github.com/mono/mono/blob/master/LICENSE


I hope you read all license agreements related to the whole framework.

A short summary, you have the point where Microsoft "promises" not to use their software patents against you.

Then you have multiple licenses for the framework that inclusde MIT, BSD and various GPL licenses.

Another point is if you embed the framework into an open source project, the .exe needs to be exchangeable and separate at all time, if you compile it into your project, then this is not possible, then you need to buy a license.


Update:

It looks like they really opensourced most of their stuff now:

http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Embedding-mono-runtime-td4662200.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3050732/microsoft-windows/xamarins-mono-runtime-gets-a-looser-license.html


But I'm still sceptical, probably they updated their license to get more stupid users to use their stuff. It looks like they still sell their license, the question is what that is supposed to be for.

Overall I think it is still dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as TS continues to work, I don't see the problem.


On a personal level, I would rather not use anything from Microsoft. Fairly recently I've decided to cut myself completely from Microsoft all together.

Their basic business model is so far from what I want to contribute to. Anyway I switched to Linux only and am not looking back. I admit Torque 3D getting a Linux port was one of the last requirements before switching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as TS continues to work, I don't see the problem.


On a personal level, I would rather not use anything from Microsoft. Fairly recently I've decided to cut myself completely from Microsoft all together.

Their basic business model is so far from what I want to contribute to. Anyway I switched to Linux only and am not looking back. I admit Torque 3D getting a Linux port was one of the last requirements before switching.

 

It should work just fine, the changes that are being considered is probably just the ones from this commit. (Which is not finished, but that is the changes needed to get most of the C# stuff working)

´

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't you just maintain that in a separate branch? Should not be that hard. I think most people already maintain a separate modified engine for their projects.

Well sure I could, in fact I've been working with C# for the sake of Torque6 and not for the sake of Torque3D, so it's not really a priority for me to get C# in Torque3D. But if it makes sense to include in the engine, as it is a small amount of changes in order to implement, then why not?

I have to point out yet again that the change is about exposing an interface. Think of it as taking Torque3D, and transforming it into an engine with a lot of buttons and input and output panels, instead of a box with a start and a stop button as it is currently.

You can then, put that engine in a C# car, a TorqueScript car or a Java car, whatever you like.


If you don't agree on the benefit of that, then I guess we just have different visions of what Torque3D should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If C# does get implemented, it won't be at the cost of TS. At minimum, the core configuration and tools are in TS and that's unlike to change in the future.


Much like enabling multiple sound systems and multiple physics engines, the idea is to add a framework to let the end-user have the option that suits them best.


C# is very unlikely to go anywhere, and if you don't want to use it(if it gets rolled in in the end) you can just continue using TS as usual, but having it as a potential option may well be more appealing and comfortable for some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You could make it as an addon that is default to off like other modules with Torque like physics modules are and if someone wants to use it, he can switch a flag to on before compile.

 

Something along those lines, yeah. The actual changes, as Lukas has pointed out is really just exposing and tweaking an existing interface in the engine to make it more flexible, but the idea is it's an additional option for people to work with if they want to work with it, but not an obligation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...