I don't understand the attitude about donations. The developer wrote an awe-inspiring work of art and has been giving it away without demand for years. He asks for donations with clear set goals of what they go toward for improving the software. Take it or leave it.
Yes, an open-source version would be valuable and I invite anyone here to start one.
It's fine to spend $5 on a cup of coffee, but "information wants to be free" even if it's the product of years and years of grueling work.
This petulant entitled mentality is vile, especially when it's directed at a free labor of love like this. If people don't like it they shouldn't use it, and nobody is making anyone donate anything.
Edit: the thing I'm really responding to here is the holier-than-thou ideology you see around this topic from time to time, and the negativity directed at this and other developers for daring to suggest that their work might be worthy of some form of compensation. It's total nonsense. It's not about some high-minded "community ideal." People are just being greedy and cheap.
How and under what terms someone releases their work is their choice, not yours. The only choice you have is whether or not to partake.
I find myself sometimes resenting something for not being free. I try to rationalize the real costs of things on the internet, but as they say, for the brain, going from 0€ to 1€ is an infinite raise. And it's hard.
The ironic thing about it is that, the more things are free in the web - even crappy versions bloated with ads, with security concerns, with the big question of why should anyone keep fixing things and maintaining free products of services -, the harder it is to find something like this and not think: "Payment? Why should that deserve payment? the other day I saw something else almost completely independent that was free! And I know of at least one thing that is free and it is more valuable to me! It's ridiculous. That guy/gal is nuts, they have an absurd self-esteem. Not worth it.".
So what I try to do is appreciate every single thing that I get for free, and try to imagine if I could do it from scratch, and how much of my life I would need to put into it to get what is now free. That helps putting value into something, as even if it is a faulty measure (effort and cost don't drive value), it helps to put consideration of someone else's work on the table, and a little empathy, that so easily is lost on the internet.
For me open source is a simple matter of practicality. Open source software is freely audit-able and usually free of any kind of trust issue. If something is not open source I simply don't install it on my computer because I must assume the author is trying to hide something.
So far this has protected me from the Sony rootkit fiasco and the Sprint/Samsung IQAgent keylogger debacle.
All closed source software I use is provide by my workplace on a machine they provide. Or the low level radio driver in my phone :( . OR is installed on a special untrusted machine dedicated to such use.
> How and under what terms someone releases their work is their choice, not yours. The only choice you have is whether or not to partake.
And all people are saying is that they won't partake or support if it's not licensed to their satisfaction. There are no license fascists going around breaking windows to make people conform.
I'm the author of a number of open source projects, and some of the messages I've received are just insane.
The latest thing is... get a load of this... it's now no longer good enough to give your code and your service away for free. Nope. It has to be free and permissively licensed, so that anyone who wants to take it closed and put their name and a price tag on it can do so without compensating you in any way whatsoever. Anything less and you're not serving "the community."
I have to ask what kind of community this is. OSS was envisioned as the basis of an information gift economy, not a bunch of "takers." Nowadays the takers are increasingly corporations, not even individuals.
That's why my larger non-trivial OSS projects are and will likely remain GPL or similar. I do sometimes release trivial stuff under public domain or nearly-so licenses, but things that take years of work? Sorry, but you have to give something back. At the very least you have to acknowledge its authorship if you use it.
Luckily these attitudes are far from the majority, but I still think it's worthwhile to call out obnoxious trash for what it is. I've come to the same opinion with regard to piracy, especially industrial-scale piracy. The thing that really bothers me is when people actually get holier-than-thou about it. I have more respect for you if you just say "look, I'm a cheap greedy jerk and I want free stuff." At least you're admitting it. But please do not try to act like your wanting free stuff is some kind of grandiose liberal social statement that's helping make the world a better place, because it's not. At worst you are helping to devalue labor and destroy peoples' livelihoods. At the very best you are accomplishing nothing.
The last thing I want the author of something as beautiful as Space Engine to see is to visit the HN thread about their project and see a bunch of whiny takers berating them about how they're not allowed to take take take on terms that please them sufficiently.
I would also prefer an open source version, but not because he's asking for donations, but because this is just one guy and it wouldn't be a first for him to just disappear for private reasons like family matters, grinding the project to a halt. :( This project feels very fragile and it would be a shame to see it abandoned with everything he's done.
YES! Everyone should try this. Sometimes I can get lost in it for hours, just floating around the galaxies...
It's so cool that everything you see, every little star in each Galaxy you can zoom into and check out. Check the simulated atmosphere of every planet, check the rough surfaces of every little asteroid. All procedurally generated and very mind blowing.
It would definitely make for an interesting experience. All the new platforms, even HaloLens if possible to project around you in 3D space could be amazing.
Then add virtual "space ships". I've actually used Space Engine to make it look like I'm in a space ship travelling at warp speed by increasing the speed at which you're travelling through the galaxy. It almost makes it seem like you're on Enterprise. I imagine the experience would be even better with VR.
While I appreciate the sentiment that leads one to say "then don't donate," and especially for a codebase you've worked on for a while, simply "open sourcing it" might not be as straightforward as all that. Yet still, it leaves a strange taste in my mouth here in 2015 when you run across such an ambitious and successful project that asks the community for help but then prints this in their license: "The source code, design, and structure of the Software are trade secrets."
I understand the desire to generate income from it at some point, but then why are you asking people to blindly donate $80K to help you build a potential business model?
All that said, it's a fantastic program, and I wish the author much success in the future. A marriage of this and KSP would be like some sort of dream scenario :)
What, you mean like selling a piece of software? Why is this any different than any other game that is sold, e.g. as an early access. They sure aren't open sourcing most games.
Nope, but the business model of most games is nothing like this. It's more like movies, where advance sale of licenses gets you the money to hire the team and then the clock starts and if you don't hit the milestones, the shit hits the fan and before you know it, you've turned into Electronic Arts ;)
But seriously, this isn't selling software. Strangely, if this were like Kerbal Space Program, and the dev were offering to SELL it for $40, $50, $60 with the promise that that price includes upgrades up to a certain version (1.0 + minor releases in the cycle?) I'd probably do that.
I am not, however, going to donate money to a project that literally states in the license that their software is a trade secret. What is this, 1980?
I'm confused how software is so different from any other type of invention. If you've ever backed a single Kickstarter project you're being hypocritical.
I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. It's how closed source should work.
It feels like you're arguing semantics - it says "trade secret" so you're put off. If it didn't say anything and was just closed source... would you care as much?
Nothing in this world requires you to like or participate in anything else - you don't have to donate or participate. But the level of entitlement is off the charts.
> I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent.
These are not the only two options. If I understood it right, the programmer is asking for money to develop something that will be available for download for free, but whose source code would be secret.
As a programmer myself (who writes free-as-in-speech software), the source code is the most relevant artifact and the only one that interests me. I would not sponsor the development of a project where the only deliverable is an opaque binary executable where other development models are possible.
This space engine software runs on 0 of my computers, with source and the game dev experience I have I might change that. With the binaries provided I cannot change that. This software may as well from a naive self concerned viewpoint.
For crying out loud, you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing. Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available?
So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? WTF.
> you can download it for free, make videos with it for noncommercial use, and generally geek out on the thing
No. I can't. It does not support my computing platform. Neither of them, by the way.
> Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available?
There is no reason why he should not solicit donations and it is, I agree, an Amazing Thing. It is, however, only partially available.
> So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that?
What would change if the source code were licensed under GPL? The download is free-as-in-beer, so others making if available for download would change nothing. Others could help adding features and helping development at a faster pace. If someone else took over the burden to port it to another platform (and, say, make me happy), the project would be able to attract more funding.
The only possible downside is if a fork gained more traction than the root project and started attracting more funding. Still, any improvements would flow upstream back to his project thanks to the wonders of the GPL.
I would understand resistance were he charging for the download. In that case, the GPL wouldn't help at all. Also, he can copyright any art that's part of the final product (much like Red Hat copyrights their red hats) and that would prevent any third party from building a final product exactly like his. If the art added sufficient value (unlike all those little red hats) there would be no fork like CentOS.
Think it through. He's actually hurting himself by keeping it closed.
It's hardly the authors responsibility to produce a version for you preferred computing platforms. You can always run Wine or somesuch.
Perhaps he wants to license his technology to a commercial publisher, and estimates that keeping the codebase private is a safer commercial decision than putting it out under the GPL or trying to patent it.
Of course it's not. They want donations, I want a product under a free license that runs on my computer. Simple as that.
I will not donate money to fund the development of proprietary technology that does not run on my computer, even though I would donate money to fund the development of a free technology that does not run on my computer just because it's cool.
I don't care whether you donate or not - that's entirely your choice. What I took issue with in the first place was another poster's complaint about the author having the temerity to solicit donations at all given his proprietary inclinations.
Agreed. It irks me when proprietary software developers ask for donations for a 'free as in beer' work. Either offer your product as a paid service/item, or make it open source and free as in speech software. The middle ground is just annoying.
(1) People who make things (of any kind) publicly available are often not clear on how the public perceives them. It can be helpful to let them know.
(2) This fellow has obviously put a lot of work into the program. But there are limits on how far development by one person, in their spare time, is likely to go. There are two reasonably sustainable development models: establish a clear funding stream by charging for the product, or release the source code and do open development. This fellow is doing neither. If people admire this work, and want it to continue to be developed, then they have an incentive to encourage the original developer to switch to a more sustainable model.
and ...
(3) Is there anything wrong with offering a trade? "I'd like it if you did X. If you do, then I'll give you money."
I agree with everything you said. But this isn't what's happening in this thread. In this thread, a random, semi-anonymous person saw that someone was offering their work for free and asking for donations, and planted their feet firmly in the ground and let everyone know that they refuse to donate unless the code is licensed in exactly the way they like.
"I absolutely refuse to do Y, unless you do X exactly the way I want it done."
The above two are making essentially the same statement. The difference is one of attitude. And the attitude behind a short online text message, is something very easy to misinterpret -- or so recent history suggests, IMHO.
When you say I'm semi-anonymous, I assume you didn't bother to even click on the profile link. There you'll find more than enough to send me a pizza, if you are so inclined. I do not hide and I am very public about my opinions.
In fact, I think this project, being closed, is a disservice to the craft of software creation. It's great work and, yet, all we can see is its results rendered on a screen. It's also limited to a single operating system and CPU architecture. Opening it up would enrich other groups and allow it to be enriched by them.
I place no unreasonable condition on my donation. In fact, it's my donation and no legally allowed condition should be deemed unreasonable.
You're on a website chock full of users trying to make money by selling stuff. Of course they're going to be pro-selling stuff, even in sub-optimal closed-source forms.
MIT licence is pretty popular here for exactly that reason.
You may have avoided downvotes if you'd couched your argument in terms of licences. Perhaps.
The other thing that surprised me is the marked shift according to timezone. Right now, noon at GMT-3, I see upvotes for my opinions. However, as noon moved to the US West and mid-Pacific, a steady flow of bad karma hit my comments.
There is a master's or doctoral thesis in there somewhere waiting to be extracted...
Its graphically more intensive, with larger volume of data. You can also explore the yet unseen parts of the universe which are procedurally generated and imo more detailed.
A: Yes, this is planned for in the near future. There is a donation campaign ongoing for this. If you would like to get SpaceEngine to Mac soon, please donate here.
Don't forget that Rift also seemed to support Linux, but then decided to push that to the back of their planning. So even if it's in the list of things to do, that doesn't mean it will happen in the near future, or even at all.
What you said was sarcastic, but you make a serious point.
I absolutely refuse to expose myself on the internet to virus and other malicious digital attacks, that I do not have to be exposed to. Dropping windows entirely was one of the single best steps I took in minimizing that attack surface.
I do not have resources to dedicate to having yet another untrusted machine with expensive software for the sake of one "free" piece of software that amounts to little more than a game (even though I really like games).
Yes, an open-source version would be valuable and I invite anyone here to start one.