To add to this, I work alone on my game currently, but often on two different machines.
I upgraded to Godot 4.4, did the auto convert thing for the new UIDs, pushed that change to git, pulled on my other machine, and I’ve had no issues.
There was a big change regarding UIDs in Godot 4.4.
You should have seen a warning popup about this when you first updated your project to 4.4. You would have been given the option to convert all files to the new UID format.
As far as I understand, this should have been done by one developer as the only change. An “upgrade to Godot 4.4” commit if you will. Then all other devs should have pulled that, then continued work.
Ideally this would be done on a branch to test the effect on the project. Engine updates should never be taken lightly during a project. This applies to any game engine.
I thought the whole point of the new UID feature is 4.4 was to help with git workflows?
This is my eternal struggle, with any type of biscuit.
I try to not eat the whole pack in one day, so eat some then close the pack. But inevitability I go back later and finish the rest!
According to the video it’s MIT licence, and they discuss the risk of such a licence vs coreutils usage of the GPL
Tea bag first, then freshly boiled hot water.
Yeah that was the thing that alerted me.
I believe this would require agreement from all contributors, or for them to sign some kind of contributor licence agreement.
Interesting excerpt from Steamworks docs:
Which Open Source licenses are compatible with the Steamworks SDK?
In general, permissive licenses that do not put any requirements on you to redistribute your modifications under an open source license work fine. Common permissive and acceptable licenses includes MIT License, BSD 3-clause and 4-clause, Apache 2.0 and WTFPL.
Which Open Source Licenses are problematic for shipping on Steam?
Generally, any license that has a so-called “copyleft” element will be problematic when combining code with the Steamworks SDK. The best-known example is GPL.
But I saw a GPL-licensed application on Steam!
This can happen if the author of the code that is GPL-licensed has given the permission to do so. The author can of course always (a) decide to grant Valve a different license than the author grants everyone else or (b) decide that what the Steamworks SDK does is just a communication with a service that does not invoke the copyleft requirement of the GPL.
Sounds like (b) above could apply to you?
Interesting. So that phrasing sounds like even if you don’t use the steam works SDK then you can’t use GPL. I wonder how Krita reconciled that?
Does your game use the steamworks SDK? If not, then you can publish it on steam as GPL or even AGPL
Yes. But it doesn’t have to replace your default terminal emulator. You can have multiple and use any of them.
He was right wing. Now he’s an anarchist.
I see what you mean. Yes there are great examples like those that offer support contracts for the open source software projects.
I think one point of confusion here is that as open source licenced projects, they do not restrict commercial use. The companies that lead the development just happen to also offer the best paid support.
Minor correction: proxmox is AGPL so free to use commercially without their support contract.
Ubuntu and LibreOffice are both free for commercial use. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
It’s no longer open source if you restrict commercial usage. Sure, licence your software that way if you want to, but don’t call it open source.
git clean does. Turns out VSCode did a clean with that GUI option at that time, not sure of current behaviour.
Perfect