What opensource packages are you using as part of their game development, and why? Cost, technology, philosophy?

I just open source nearly everything I write, eventually. Most of Alien Flux is already open sourced and the rest will follow when I've got enough registrations.

http://www.lwjgl.org <--- Our take on "SDL" for Java
http://sourceforge.net/projects/spgl <--- My actual live development code to take care of all the boring crud

I use JOrbis for OGG decoding too.

Cas :)

I use:

SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) (including SDL_Mixer and SDL_Image)
ZLIB (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/)
BFont (http://www.cs.unibo.it/~dbilli/bfont/bfont.html) (this thing is a bit buggy but it's the best I could find for my needs)

Main reasons are cost and portability. Obviously you can't beat free, especially when it comes to a no-budget project. And all of these libraries are portable. SDL is in fact portable to a ridiculous amount of platforms. :) From what it says on their home page right now there's support or at least some code for 20 platforms. I'm only planning to use 3 of them though (Windows, MAC, Linux).

SDL and friends, ZLib, Anjuta, GCC, MinGW, GIMP, GQView, NetPBM, Python, make, CVS,...

In a word : everything except NSIS Installer.

Actually, NSIS is open source too, isn't it ? (at least makensis.exe is)

I'm using SDL, SDL_Mixer, libpng, zlib, MiniGL (open source subset of OpenGL on AmigaOS), VBCC (open source C compiler), DevC++ (open source IDE for Windows), GCC, netpbm (to convert some pics to png), make.

Reasons for using them are of course the price, their "cross-platformness", and most of the time efficiency too. It also sometimes helps to be able to peek at the source code for documentation or bug fixing.

Some highly reusable parts of my own code have been released under the zlib/libpng license, or sort of.

lua... cause its a nice scripting language and cause there aren't really any others that can beat it for my needs (commercial or not)

I prefer commercial over open source. Most OpSc just comes with too many licence hassles to even consider working with. I also like to have someone responsible for what I buy, if I plan to develop a game, and there is a bug in the code or a fault in the product, I know I'll have someone to complain to fix when in OpSc i can just hope the developers will or I spend time learning the in's of it, time better spent doing my game deving.

Originally posted by Akura
I also like to have someone responsible for what I buy, if I plan to develop a game, and there is a bug in the code or a fault in the product, I know I'll have someone to complain to fix
...as long as they don't go out of business. Even when they are in business, there's no guarantee that they will listen to you. With Open Source you always have the source, be it supported or not. And for most popular libs, they are extremely good supported (SDL is an example).

An example : in the case of my day job (http://www.genexus.com), we have some unique technology developed over the last 15 years that makes extensive use of Prolog. Arity Prolog went out of business. Luckily enough, they made their compiler available for free; but not open source, so we are running into memory limitations that we just can't fix, no matter how much we need to do so.

I used to be running a completely Open Source platform joking that I hadn't bought software in several years. Here is what I currently have:

Emacs
zlib
libPNG

But that is about it. Much of the rest is bought from small online vendors, some of it is industry standard (MVC++). I agree with Akura that having someone to call is a great relief. OpenSource can also go "out-of-business", meaning that the community no longer updates the software. Even if you have the source it might not fit into your business plan to maintain an extra library.

For my server needs I use debian and freebsd. I would really like to use gcc and a linux based system for developing but cross compiling is a bitch.

Those of you, who use linux, how do you compile directx6 code for windows? That actually runs on it? :) At the time of dx3 it was quite easy and produced a quite compatible binary.

Originally posted by bernie
Those of you, who use linux, how do you compile directx6 code for windows? That actually runs on it? :) At the time of dx3 it was quite easy and produced a quite compatible binary.

If you use SDL your code should be fully portable between Linux and Windows (SDL uses DX 5 in windows actually).

I'm using SDL, SDL_mixer, libpng and zlib. I Compile with gcc and use vim as my editor.
I do the bulk of my work on Linux (debian), but compile occasionally on windows (using mingw32) and OSX to make sure I haven't broken anything.

It's a set of tools that I really like, as my environment is the same no matter what operating system I'm on.
I tend to shy away from any platform-specific code these days - I just don't see the need any more with funky stuff like SDL.

Ben.

Well, thanks for suggesting SDL, but I have a much more robust engine than that, emphasis on 3D. On linux I have an opengl, glide, and plain X bitmap rasterizing device, so I really don't need any extra layers under my engine.

The problem is that I would like to get rid of visualc. I would like to crosscompile dx6 based code. And as I see unfortunately there aren't any example of this.

I often use DelphiX. The source is available, but I'm not sure if you can call this open source, since you are not allowed to distribute modified versions. Unfortunately, the author stopped supporting it years ago so now the only way to make bug fixes available is via patches.

So much FUD exists over open source!
Open source means only one thing - that you can see the corresponding source code for a binary. It doesn't mean you can or must modify it, copy it, redistribute it, or use it. All of that stuff is a subset of open source and falls under categories like GPL, LGPL, SCSL, BSD, Apache etc.

Cas :)

For me open source is comparable to a car with an open engine :)

I can't drive it :D


pat.
ps : don't feed the troll ;)

So much FUD exists over open source!
Open source means only one thing - that you can see the corresponding source code for a binary. It doesn't mean you can or must modify it, copy it, redistribute it, or use it. All of that stuff is a subset of open source and falls under categories like GPL, LGPL, SCSL, BSD, Apache etc.



Well.....perhaps splitting hairs, but I don't think that's accurate. I purchased a license for Torque, which gives me the source code. In no way can Torque be considered open source. So there is an element above and beyond just being able to see the source. There is some level of implied rights that go along with the source.

I do my code design in psudo uml using dome (www.htc.honeywell.com/dome) because it was the first free modeling program I could find. If someone can sugest something better I would be more than willing to change.

I do project management with ganttproject (http://ganttproject.sourceforge.net/). It's a bit buggy, but so is microsoft project and you save $600.

I use filezilla (http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla/) for ftp.

I use postgres with an apache front end for our internal databases. I would have used samba for our file server, but the computer I was going to use couldn't recognize the drive I bought (too big, I'm guessing).

I'm sure there are more hiding around here because I'm a cheap SOB, and open source projects are usually as good as the commercial ones, IMO.

I purchased a license for Torque, which gives me the source code. In no way can Torque be considered open source. So there is an element above and beyond just being able to see the source. There is some level of implied rights that go along with the source.
No - that's just what you think. Open source really is what it says on the tin - open source. You've got an open source game engine. What you don't have is the right to do what the hell you like with it. There are many people who will try and claim open source means all sorts of extra things but the only thing that counts is the license that comes with the source.

Cas :)

Well....you are the only person from whom I've heard that definition, so perhaps that's what you think it is.

Here is part of the definition from the OSI:

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost–preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.


For a product to be considered open source, you must provide the source, or make it readily available. All of the open source licenses agree on that point. The restrictions come after that. I can't distribute the Torque source, that makes it closed source . If I make a game with Torque, I cannot redistribute the source code. That makes is closed source.

To summarize:
open = source freely available
closed = source not freely available

Having the source is not enough. Having it freely available is.

Oh gods - potential religious debate starting here.

The Open Source Initiative group started after the term Open Source existed, and they added 'stipulations' to what Open Source means at a later date.

Free Software, as per the Free Software Foundation has a similar, but ever so slightly different set of definitions for the term Free Software, which most people associate with the term Open Source. (And never, ever mention Open Source to RMS. I made that mistake once in an email exchange with him. *GROAN* That was a long read that I never bothered to respond to.)

Techically, Torque isn't Open Source, nor is it under a license that either the FSF or OSI endorces.

However, to me - Torque's licensing scheme works great. You get the source, and they get protection for thier software and IP. While the FSF would debate how this is stiffling innovation, take a look at the resources that are added by the community. In this case the FSF was wrong :-)

To me, everything is always the Right Tool for the job. Sometimes Open Source (TM, ESR btw) I use some Open Source products for game development, and some closed source stuff. CVS, WinDiff, Apache, etc. Some of the normal tools :o) But I don't use OS stuff just for the sake of it being OS - I use PhotoPaint instead of GIMP on Windows, because it's the right tool for the job IMHO.

I havent used Torque but have a question to those that do:

Assume a developer D modifies the engine for his project and thinks his mod is cool and posts it to the community. And the creators of Torque think its cool to have it in the next release of the engine. Who owns the IP now? D or the Torque creators? Who makes money of this mod? D or the Torque creators?

I've been thinking about providing source code to my game when the player purchases it. I was considering a Torque-style license but still mulling over it given the above 2 questions.

Thanks.