Here is the problem though: let's assume that the developer really wants to release the source code, but the problem is that they have used a third-party library where they cannot legally release because they simply don't have the rights to it. This complicates open-sourcing that software (this is already proven from time-to-time, for example the OpenJDK Java runtime needs to and has changed third-party components like the colour management system, font renderer and media framework). This can be worked around on actively-developed software or if the community wants to be involved on open-sourcing that software, but if it is being abandoned I don't see the incentive to replace these components.
Moreover, comments. From expletives to actual trade secrets, a company needs to audit the code to ensure that at least the trade secrets have been removed from the source code. For example, even though Microsoft does not release the Windows/NT code widely, there are checks to ensure that expletives and comments that might cause severe repercussions (i.e. political statements) are not inserted. However, this is definitely a lesser concern to individual or small-group developers.
(Plus tooling issues etc, but considering that the massively-popular and ported Doom exists, it might be solved by the community. However, software which no longer has a community will encounter these issues.)
The DOOM source code was released without sound support due to this:
> The bad news: this code only compiles and runs on linux. We couldn't release the dos code because of a copyrighted sound library we used (wow, was that a mistake -- I write my own sound code now), and I honestly don't even know what happened to the port that microsoft did to windows.
This isn't always a true dichotomy. Any code is better than none, you don't have to release all of it to make a difference (especially if the closed-source library is provided as a shared object). The code could be provided in a non-functionning state, it would already be a lot more helpful than binary patching while relying on disassemblers. A closed-source library can be worked around (stripping functionality), replaced, re-implemented, linked against a blob, reverse-engineered, etc.
I actually used Doom as an example of software that has received a great (it might be even the greatest) community help. However, this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622021) has succintly described further the issues of open-sourcing a previously closed-sourced software. One of the most important point here is the fact that some software code are not organized could have a surprise third-party code which required intensive audits. Obivously, in some cases it is simply not economical to do such auditing.
There are a surprising number of cases where it is extremely unlikely that a library is replaceable even if the use case is popular and there is no restriction on making an open source replacement. The overhead cost of open sourcing software can be high, which must be offset by a realistic expectation that value will be created by open sourcing it. There are two common cases not considered here of which I've seen several examples of libraries in my world.
First, replacing the library requires extremely high/rare expertise and several man-years of development to implement a basic version. These never get replaced in open source because the level of individual investment is extraordinary; these libraries only get built when a company invests a few million dollars hiring one of the handful of people that know how to write one over years, which is rare and at which point they want to own it. The barrier to open source MVP is simply too high. Even worse, in some cases the licensed version becomes unavailable/unsupported because the person that designed it moves on but at least there is an incentive to spend a lot of money to remedy that.
Second, replacing the library requires computer science that has no description in literature. I've seen teams of CS PhDs spend years trying to clean room equivalent libraries with little success when there are few hints in existing computer science literature how the original library capability was even achieved. They might be able to buy a license to the original library but many times that is cost prohibitive (millions of dollars) or not available at all (licensing restrictions).
Not every application has a library dependency with these properties but it isn't that rare either. These libraries are used for good reason and sometimes provide central functionality without which the rest of the source code is relatively low value.
Unless it's something wildly popular, to a first approximation, no one is going to go to the effort to get a discontinued game or other software into a usable state given missing libraries, build systems, developer docs, etc. And, as parent noted, it's still quite a bit of work to open source proprietary code even if a company has a genuine interest in doing so. I have first-hand knowledge of situations where a company wanted/needed to open source acquired code and it took a good year of concerted effort to do so.
In the second paragraph of the article the author describes how some dependencies of the application were replaced by open-source libraries like SDL. There are also many more examples of this happening. So the assertion that "nobody" would do it is wrong.
If the application is interesting, people will find find a way to run it on modern hardware. It's not an excuse not to open-source what you can of your code.
This line of excuses is just weak. Either release the code or keep it proprietary, that's your decision as owner. Just spare us the silly excuses and trying to make it seem like your company would really really like to open-source if only it wasn't for that tiny detail of blah...
Getting rid of third party's code often isn't as easy as removing a folder and be done. Sometimes third party code is deeply integrated and was patched and can't be isolated or it might be the core component/core engine where the missing make aThe reminder almost useless. Also some vendors put their APIs behind an NDA, thus you not only have to remove the API, but also rework the calling code. (Just for open sourcing fighting whether the NDA is legally clair is quite some effort ...)
This also becomes fun if you worked with external contractors, who committed all over the code and the agreement doesn't cover releasing the code.
And then there are still all the other things in open sourcing (making sure comments are appropriate, naming is appropriate, ...)
And then you have IP besides the source, in artwork where designers often have some rights, copyrights, trademarks ...
And after all that the "fear" on your reputation, if one fears the code might seem of low quality, which might reflect bad. (Whether it's truly bad doesn't really matter, a few blog posts or youtube videos of somebody taking worst parts can harm reputation)
It's all simpler, if you plan on doing that eventually from the start, but notable effort for any serious project after the fact.
It seems unwise to let control of your product degrade to the point where you cannot draw a line between code you own yourself and encumbered/external code. It should be possible to avoid with proper planning. Still, you're probably right that it is a common situation.
Your other examples mostly seem to boil down to "we were not willing to commit the necessary resources to do it". Which is fine, of course.
> Your other examples mostly seem to boil down to "we were not willing to commit the necessary resources to do it".
Yes, of course. If I invest resources from the beginning for "I want to relicense and open all the code" then there is no problem. However for most companies the priority is "get this out before our competitor releases their product" and many things fall under and often neither developers nor managers have the legal knowledge (and don't care)
And btw. I fully support this on a different level: For instance for devices like (home) routers I support a scheme where a company is required to publish the software once they cancel support, so one doesn't have to throw away fine working devices only since the vendor stops fixing security issues. But that won't happen quickly, as it goes through the supply chain: You need the device drivers for the chipsets etc.
I wrote no one "to a first approximation" which I stand by for most (but not all) software. I actually think it would be nice if more abandonware would be released but "it's too much effort" and "it exposes me to unknown risks, especially if I don't take the effort to do due diligence" are not silly excuses.
I did eventually open source some code from a popular shareware utility years ago after people asked me to. (No one ever did anything with it of course.) It took me a while because I did use some third party code but eventually decided the company that wrote the code was long gone and no one would care. But a business with lawyers would not have allowed that. And even documenting what would be needed to replace the routines would have taken a fair bit of work.
> no one is going to go to the effort to get a discontinued game or other software into a usable state
The reason to open sourcing abandonware is not because you know for sure someone needs/wants it, it's to enable someone who does need/wants it, can still have it.
Instead of assuming you know what people want, open sourcing abandonware would enable people to make that decision for themselves, not you making it for them.
There are examples of niche things being resurrected by players. Niche MMOs have from scratch servers, niche consoles have complete emulators, etc. Saying "no one is going to go to the effort" is not accurate.
In what way exactly? Copyright law is the only method a person has to control how it redistributed, if there is no copyright on the API then no one has the legal authority to prevent redistribution.
Contract law. I'm not aware of it having been tested, but a contractual obligation not to distribute something is not the same as something not being copyrighted. See the post on HN yesterday about atlassian not allowing performance comparisons as part of their TOS.
Note: US law, obviously (these points are moot in EU due to strong laws for interoperability).
Contracts can legally bind the developer/s with this, more so if it is a corporate entity. Even if Google wins this case and the APIs cannot legally acquire copyright protection, the third-party can sue the developer/s for disclosing trade secrets. The code legally is clean (IP-wise) at this point, but the developer/s have broken a contract with the third-party provider in doing so, and they can sue those developer/s (however, any users of the released code are protected since they are not the signatories/parties to the contract).
It depends on how the physics engine has been integrated into your game/engine. The book "Game Coding Complete" shows how to isolate a 3rd-party physics engine so you can switch implementations.
Of course, every physics engine behaves a little differently from the others, so, if you game is physics centered (pinball, racing), switching implementation might result in a slightly different game - but having the core of your game depends on the implementation details of some 3rd-party library might not be a good idea anyway.
In general, the more you sprinkle your code with dependencies to 3rd party libraries, the less control you have over the resulting product.
Your point still stands, though, for some very low-level "utility" libraries like boost or the STL, or any standard library replacement , and more generally, libraries holding "vocabulary" types.
> there are checks to ensure that expletives and comments that might cause severe repercussions (i.e. political statements) are not inserted
Related: In the past, after Microsoft was forced to release Hyper-V linux driver source code under GPL, someone noticed 'naughty phrase' in magic number that Hyper-V used, which is '0xB16B00B5' or 'BIG BOOBS', Microsoft apologized afterwards [0]
That might be quite a blocker for closed-source commercial apps that are distributed to the user. On the other hand in-house apps and web apps usually don't suffer this problem from what I've seen. Most of the time open source libraries are strongly preferred and even if not, the closed sourced licenses for dependencies can easily be obtained by the intended user oftentimes. (At least frontend dependencies need to be MIT or BSD licensed anyway)
YMMV, but most of our in-house applications use a few of the Aspose .NET libraries. Many of them are written to interact with our billing and document management systems (primitive VCS). I have written a few applications and most of them would be useless outside of our environment. I have released some PowerShell scripts to an industry specific forum, though.
The biggest barrier to releasing our applications as open source are organizational. It would take a number of approvals to do so and our developers would have to review the code first. We have a small development team with a large backlog of work; it’s hard to argue that they should spend time to do this instead of a higher priority task.
On the software side, it would be nice of the developers to do so, no harm to them and a great benefit to those still using the program.
Now on the hardware side[0] there's a mismatch in incentives: an otherwise functioning piece of hardware is unable to perform certain tasks (some that even were advertised at the time of purchase) due to changes in the software or it not being compatible to updates elsewhere in the ecosystem[3], all of which could easily be fixed with software updates. The companies selling these obviously say to buy the newest version, but that feels like a waste of resources and money to me. As much as I try voting with my wallet, I think this is getting worse with more "smart" devices, where there is little choice.
[0]: I noticed this post is right below a post on a GPS issue concerning a Garmin smartwatch I own [1], that might get this update because a famous blogger posted about it, but not other fixes, like podcasts since Catalina [2]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25620372
[2]: https://forums.garmin.com/apps-software/mac-windows-software...
[3]: I have an iPad 3 lying around, which is mostly useless to my workflow because it doesn't sync the Safari bookmarks, can't install an alternative browser and doesn't include most icloud features. Another example are routers and other consumer networking equipment, that frequently end up not getting updates soon after release.
You remember, that everyone was a beginner once and put a note for that in the release. Laugh at yourself, so it becomes unnecessary for others to laugh about you.
It's not necessarily misguided. Geeks love to cut up other geeks.
As the recipient of a fair bit of that stuff, over the years, it has hardened my resolve to:
A) Do a top-notch job on all my code; regardless of whether or not anyone else will ever see it it; and
2) Not pass public negative judgement, in a specific way, on others' code (unless, of course, I am planning to use it).
Positive judgement is all good. I will sometimes make generalized "kids, these days" or "get off my lawn" statements. I may have specific targets, but I keep things vague.
As a manager for 25 years, I learned that carrots tend to yield better long-term results than sticks.
If a young programmer releases something that they think will "change the world," but is, in fact, just another wheel, I see geeks pile on them mercilessly.
I feel that it is better to praise the good work, and gently point them towards the previous wheels.
But I'm a fairly abnormal geek.
I've also open-sourced almost all my work for the last couple of decades.
If you're like most above-average programmers, you constantly evolve. Your code from N years ago should look worse than the code you write today, otherwise you're not really improving are you?
So you completely missed the initial point made by FartyMcFarter, that old code looks worse than what you write today and people might judge you for it.
Not sure what you're talking about. The person you replied to has the username FartyMcFarter, not sure who's doing the "cutting" here. It's also not even relevant to the general point in this sub-thread...
I would love Opera's Presto engine to be open sourced. A few days ago I've read taht there are extreme memory optimizations so that it could be run on centralized servers for their Opera Mini variant. Also we really need more browser engines.
Too late, probably (open-sourcing, not the threat of monoculture). The owners of Opera AS (a Chinese VC as of now) aren't probably interested in that. It would be much more probable that Microsoft will release IE under MIT over open-sourcing Presto.
I remember they couldn't do it because they had some proprietary code inside Presto and had contract obligation with many embedded system still using the Opera's Presto rendering engine.
While the source is... Accessible... You sadly cannot incorporate it into your own open source browser, which is the main problem. Maybe I'll tinker around with the "open source" version someday
I would want to also, but I imagine that third-pary components used will be problematic (plus the "Ha! That's why its insecure!" comments from some parts of the computing community).
Anecdotally, the .tk domain is a great idea in principle for giving so many people the opportunity to have their very own namespace for free. But like so many free things, bad actors(spammers, et. al) ruin it for the rest of us.
IMHO, .tk is a bit cheesy but on the other hand, who cares really? This article is just a simple rich text document, in principle it could just as well has been served over FTP or Gopher, or hosted on Tripod or Angelfire or whatever. (Yes, those still exist!)
I’m a bit of a tin foil hat kind of a guy and for my own personal websites I prefer serving them with HTTPS and HSTS, but it’s more of a best practices thing and it’s not really a matter of life or death for my (very few) visitors.
Definitely don't. Nothing good will come to you from it.
You abandoned it for a reason and only people who'll benefit from it are other people. That would be fine if it was not at your expense. Someone may look at the source code and contact your support or even take you to court because one of your programmers ignored license of a third party library. You could get it audited and re-write parts of it... even so, there is a non-zero risk that someone will come after you.
If you're OK with that, do what you want. Otherwise, by default, don't opensource your abandonware.
Good point, although what would cause a situation like this? Releasing source code with a modified version of a GPL-licensed library, but with an incompatible license? Wouldn't that be a problem when you're distributing software anyway, regardless of whether it's open-source or not?
Moreover, comments. From expletives to actual trade secrets, a company needs to audit the code to ensure that at least the trade secrets have been removed from the source code. For example, even though Microsoft does not release the Windows/NT code widely, there are checks to ensure that expletives and comments that might cause severe repercussions (i.e. political statements) are not inserted. However, this is definitely a lesser concern to individual or small-group developers.
(Plus tooling issues etc, but considering that the massively-popular and ported Doom exists, it might be solved by the community. However, software which no longer has a community will encounter these issues.)