Talk:Open Source Tools
I do believe that some of the tools could be improved upon extensively if the community were allowed greater access. There's many talented people here, and rather than having to wait for the next major release from Valve for a minor bug fix, it'd be much easier for all parties concerned to implement the fix ourselves, and submit it for general release to the maintainers. --Spektre1 01:55, 21 Jul 2006 (PDT)
Having VHE as opensource would allow modders to make it more dynamic...of course this might also require the SDK to mount the mod's 'tool content' folder before the general SDK version. As for code submissions, it would be great if we could manage submissions by providing base version code as well as automatically diffpatched submissions with titles&descriptions...and provide an online 'view friendly' version (highlighting changes) as well as a downloadable (zip) version—ts2do 02:15, 21 Jul 2006 (PDT)
Great idea, I'll put my name on it. It would definitely do the community some good, considering the lack of regular updates to fix bugs (as Spektre said). Wraiyth 17:20, 21 Jul 2006 (PDT)
- Having VHE's Source code would really help alot. I think that making a new version of VHE using VGUI would really help out alot. And it would look better, I would totally help make a new version of Hammer.--Gameexpertmaster 18:04, 21 Jul 2006 (PDT)
I sign my name with great emphasis on this but i recognize any reluctance valve may have at there being 1000's of VHE clones that everyone all of a sudden expects them to deal with. While i want an open source approach to prevent any problems with millions of VHE clones i propose the compromise of a plugin system. Its eithier or, give me a plugin system or give me the source code. The current state of affairs cannot continue unless you devtoe a radical team to overhual VHE and dediated to keeping source tools running and new. And we all know how likeley that is. --Angry Beaver 20:27, 21 Jul 2006 (PDT)
Maybe Valve would simply allow plugins to be posted online, like Mozilla's Add-on system. That way Valve would keep the source code, but users could get the functionality and versitility they want. On the prerequisite of owning Half-Life 2 to download the SDK, I don't think that it's really fair. For example, what if I only had Day of Defeat: Source to create maps for? Shouldn't I be able to use HWE too? (Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if I'm right, there you go :P) --Wizpig64 01:42, 22 Jul 2006 (PDT)
I'm with this. But yeah, there are some considerations that should be, considered. Methulah 14:54, 8 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Releasing tools with their source will likely increase their abilities and their features. Having more brains working on a project cannot but improve it. Indeed some people arround here are sort of geniusses, so why would you like to prevent them from giving you a hand? I also would like to mention that the fact of release the sources may let the mod-making teams edit tools which would be more specific to their axpectations! Yours, truly.
----Dolphin's Eye 16:08, 8 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Contents
Licensing
Why not point out this has successfully been done in the past (see GTK Radiant)? Anyway, the licensing issue is not as trivial as seen in the article. Valve will want to sell the tools along with the engine, but won't allow anyone else to resell (or even use it) for a commercial project. I think it's a good idea and it would turn out well (especially if Valve supervises the development) but I kinda doubt it will happen. --Vaarscha 23:59, 8 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- Isn't this similar to how the Source SDK licencing is in the first place? You can make a mod but not sell it—ts2do 01:13, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- From a modders POV yes, but not from Valves. They don't sell mods, but the tools. If the engine evolves, the tools have to update as well. In case they choose to keep their own tools (and let the open source crew do whatever they want), an update would potentially break the open source tools (or at least miss some features)... if they choose to use and help developing the open source tool themself, they'd need to distribute it along with an engine license, but no one else is supposed to sell it. And that's basically the point where the standard open source licenses fail... but I guess Valve knows enough lawyers to work something out. --Vaarscha 05:22, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- Valve don't exactly sell the tools seperately. The fact that they are freely available needn't affect the cost of an engine license, although a small reduction would be honourable. --TomEdwards 13:39, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- With all due respect, please read the complete discussion before making a nonsense-ish comment. I stated that Valve sells the tools along with the engine. Furthermore I pointed out that Valve doesn't want to see their tools beeing freely used with other (commercial) engines as that would save those companies some serious money for development. That is why a 'classical' open-source license won't work out. --Vaarscha 11:07, 10 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- Perhaps that is true of the user interfaces, but it is ridiculous for a developer to create an engine through reverse-engineering that can use the compiled output most tools produce. Plus, there's no reason why a license restricting commercial use can't be issued. --TomEdwards 11:22, 10 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- With all due respect, please read the complete discussion before making a nonsense-ish comment. I stated that Valve sells the tools along with the engine. Furthermore I pointed out that Valve doesn't want to see their tools beeing freely used with other (commercial) engines as that would save those companies some serious money for development. That is why a 'classical' open-source license won't work out. --Vaarscha 11:07, 10 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- Valve don't exactly sell the tools seperately. The fact that they are freely available needn't affect the cost of an engine license, although a small reduction would be honourable. --TomEdwards 13:39, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
- From a modders POV yes, but not from Valves. They don't sell mods, but the tools. If the engine evolves, the tools have to update as well. In case they choose to keep their own tools (and let the open source crew do whatever they want), an update would potentially break the open source tools (or at least miss some features)... if they choose to use and help developing the open source tool themself, they'd need to distribute it along with an engine license, but no one else is supposed to sell it. And that's basically the point where the standard open source licenses fail... but I guess Valve knows enough lawyers to work something out. --Vaarscha 05:22, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
I think the positives out weigh the negatives. --Ringo 01:10, 9 Aug 2006 (PDT)
I support this petition 100%. Please Consider it Valve. Thank you. --Skidz 09:57, 10 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Please!
Please make at least the tools open-source. Doing so would decrease the amount of bug-fixing you would have to do and improve the quality of the tools themselves.
I support this idea, i suggested a plugin system, but this would give mods the ability to modify the hammer editor and other tools to be easier to use for themselves. Solokiller 08:43, 31 Jan 2008 (PST)
Might fix the current crash bug
Considering any attempt by me to start the SDK through Steam (or otherwise) has been met with total failure, I am forced to agree that there is no other option but to open the busted code up to the public in its entirety. It is almost certain that they can fix the current crippling error, and if they can peal off the horrific Steam, then that is all the better. --Terminator484 16:39, 12 Feb 2008 (PST)
it would also be nice for some of the other DLLs to become editable so you can make a mod more unique...
DEFINITELY MLSTRM 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Do it Please...
As others said before, it can only get better, so please consider it... --Neico 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Signed (HL1 only)
Signed, but only for Half-Life 1, because it's abandoned. SiPlus 10:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
