cybereality I think this is actually healthy and a good model.

I mostly agree here, yet again, if a project is built upon hypocritical decisions, dishonesty, and lack of consolidated effort: all these factors could undermine Godot's success in the long run. Without this, Godot's "success" would be reminiscent to imperial expansion, which could be seen "beneficial" by some, but for whom and what cost? Who's going to lose in this equation? Is it community's success as a whole, or success of Godot leadership specifically?

Ironically, I'd like to quote Joseph Jacks (JJ), who's a founder of OSS Capital (Open Source Software Capital), who invested in W4 Games:

There’s no money in open source.
There’s only niche money in open source.
There’s definitely money in open source.
Most of the money is in open source.
The only money is in open source.
There is no money, there’s only open source.

I'll leave this up to your interpretation. 😛

    Well I think the reason W4 was set up as a separate company was to enable to providing things that Godot, as a non-profit project with an OSS charter, cannot. For example, console support. To release on any of the big 3 you need to sign an NDA prohibiting you from sharing certain platform specifics. Godot can't include console support as part of the core project because the MIT license is incompatible with these NDAs, and it can't use foundation resources to produce code that is not open source. But private companies can sign the NDA, work under it, and share it with anyone else who has signed the same NDA. So far it sounds like this has taken the form of hiring one of these companies to port your game for you, but what I'm really hoping for with W4 is that they'll be able to implement an extension that anyone (under NDA) can license to add console support. This hasn't been announced but the DirectX implementation they've provided already seems like a step in that direction.

    Regarding Lone Wolf, Prehensile Tales, and Ramatak, it doesn't seem weird to me that some people who are very involved in game engine development own game development companies. Game dev is kind of their thing. Godot can't sign its own Windows binaries because it's a nonprofit organization, not a licensed Microsoft developer.

    I don't see any evidence of hypocrisy or dishonesty. We live in a litigious world and sometimes there are hoops to jump through to keep everything compliant. I was actually really excited when W4 was announced because it seemed like that could finally be the way to (among other things) add proper console support while keeping Godot open source.

      Right, there is no money in open source. But code provides value, and money is a direct representation of value. If you are providing a great value, then you can find a way to monitize that, because you are generating money for other people. I do agree with you that the leadership has flipped flopped a few times. mostly regarding console support, but I think they made the right call to start a private company. There are realities of business, such as incompatible licenses on NDA console APIs, and you don't really have a choice.

      soundgnome Well I think the reason W4 was set up as a separate company was to enable to providing things that Godot, as a non-profit project with an OSS charter, cannot.

      Sure, I agree here, they cannot legally do this as a non-profit project, frankly this is no-brainer and I totally realize this, it's not what I talked about. But lead developer of Godot has been constantly regurgitating that they can sustain themselves purely out of donations and passion of contributors, so the very fact of them founding a separate company goes contrary to Godot's original claims. In fact, I'd say Godot leadership admitted that pure Open Source approach doesn't work in practice (with actions, not words).

      Here's a few quote from Juan, lead developer of Godot (2016):

      Monogame is made by Xamarin, and it's a company with paid employees. We are not [emphasis mine]. Only companies can get licensed.

      Context: MonoGame is an open-source project, just like Godot, but in contrast, they had console support all this time. So why wouldn't Godot choose a similar model as in MonoGame in the first place? In the case of Godot and their decision to found W4 Games along with other companies, the "we are non-profit" sounds more like a lip service than what actually happens de-facto. Did you know that Godot has been licensed to various clients via private commercial company Codenix company? This is the time when Godot wasn't open-source and wasn't called "Godot", by the way. They could definitely just continue with Codenix, make Godot open-source, and provide commercial services and have official support for consoles right from the start. But again, for some reason or another, they haven't done this. I could definitely provide my conjectures on this, but something tells me that I'd be eventually banned from this forum if I do this. 😛

      soundgnome Regarding Lone Wolf, Prehensile Tales, and Ramatak, it doesn't seem weird to me that some people [emphasis mine] who are very involved in game engine development own game development companies.

      You label Godot leadership as "some people". I'd like to clarify: you do realize that those "some people" are Godot founders and final decision makers in Godot, right? Those "some people" have direct write access to Godot repository, and are able to manage community members, control who can and cannot talk on various topics such as governance, etc.

      soundgnome Godot can't sign its own Windows binaries because it's a nonprofit organization, not a licensed Microsoft developer.

      Godot executable is literally signed by a commercial company, it doesn't matter whether it's an individual or not:

      Therefore, Godot can do this as a non-profit organization, namely via Software Freedom Conservancy, where Godot is currently a member project (for now), who literally owns Godot trademark (you can do a trademark search here):

      But for some unknown reason, they don't do this. Perhaps due to political reasons of Software Freedom Conservancy, but I feel like Godot developers share the same sentiment, so even if Godot creates its own so-called non-profit "Godot Foundation", they wouldn't codesign Windows executables via such a foundation.

      Out of curiosity, I checked whether Blender's executable for Windows is codesigned by their "Blender Foundation". And yes, it is:

      Just saying it's possible.

            A few thoughts:

            I think it is a bit early to be making guesses as to how the Godot team will handle Godot in terms of their commercial pursuits. I think there is places for concern (why go away from the foundation they were using before, what exactly to they plan to offer, etc) but I have not seen evidence that it is going to somehow effect Godot’s current trajectory at this time. It is not to say it couldn’t happen, but I think at this time it is mostly speculation. I would advise to see how they act in addition to speculating before getting too concerned.

            Additionally, there is some historic context being missed here. With Prehensile Tales and signing, for example, there was no official Godot commercial entity at the time to sign and they needed the binaries signed soon, sooner than they had time to make a different solution. I would like to see it officially signed by the Godot foundation or their commercial offering, but that was only recently made.

            The other companies that provide consulting are in similar boats: there was no official company and because Godot is open source and under MIT, they are entitled to form a company should they wish that offers commercial services. You, or anyone, can do the same under the license.

            With the Godot founders stuff, that really only applies to Reduz, as the other founder (Ariel Manzur) is not directly involved in development last I knew.

            As for individuals with control to merge and decide changes, that is largely up to an inner core group of people who are comprised of trusted individuals decided upon by those within the core group. I’m not a big fan of all the decisions they have made, and am not aware of all the decisions, but I can confidently say many members of that core group are not commercially funded to be there nor are they Godot founders. I understand concern that they are leading it without complete transparency, but the size of the project, conflicting interests by all contributors (on GitHub), and other complexities means someone has to steer the project and make tough decisions.

            Finally: what are you hoping this topic and discussion will achieve exactly? We are not the people involved, are an unofficial community platform, and by no means have sway over what happens. Even as the forum owner, I have no special communication nor privileges with the Godot team. We cannot effect a change here in any special way.

            Also: there are many, many game engines out there. If you do not like how Godot is heading, you are welcome to find an engine that is going in a direction you like, does not have commercial interests/influence, or otherwise meets what you are looking for. Game dev is incredibly diverse and new exciting game engines pop up frequently 🙂

            I understand having concern, but I’m unclear on what you hope will arise from this discussion.

            Additionally, just as a reminder to everyone: please remember to follow forum rules and be respectful of others, even if you disagree. If you feel someone was out of line, please flag it but do not act beyond that and let us in forum staff handle it. Thank you for your cooperation!

              TwistedTwigleg You, or anyone, can do the same under the license.

              Yes, not sure what you imply by that though, because neither me nor others represent Godot leadership in contrast.

              TwistedTwigleg With the Godot founders stuff, that really only applies to Reduz, as the other founder (Ariel Manzur) is not directly involved in development last I knew.

              This is not about development only. But given that there exist no controlling body over Godot leadership, everything is based on trust. And I'd like to repeat that I don't trust Godot leadership, that's one of the reasons why I don't even use Godot anymore.

              TwistedTwigleg Finally: what are you hoping this topic and discussion will achieve exactly?

              I'm concerned for other people who may go through a similar experience that I've had while contributing to

              Godot and talking about its governance, so I'm motivated by this as well, so other people can make an informed decision before picking Godot, something that I wasn't aware of several years ago when I first stumbled upon Godot.

              For readers: I cannot openly express everything I know about Godot here, even at unofficial Godot forums. You can find me on social media if you'd like to know more about Godot.

              TwistedTwigleg Also: there are many, many game engines out there. If you do not like how Godot is heading, you are welcome to find an engine that is going in a direction you like, does not have commercial interests/influence, or otherwise meets what you are looking for. Game dev is incredibly diverse and new exciting game engines pop up frequently 🙂

              Many Godot followers seems to misunderstand or misinterpret the main problem with Godot. The fact that Godot is involved with commercial interests/influence is not a problem per se, and it's not a core issue to me either. The problem is that the direction of Godot keeps changing in a whimsical and an unpredicted ways, constantly betraying the trust of existing users, and how a difference in opinion is treated in Godot community, especially leadership.

              TwistedTwigleg I understand having concern, but I’m unclear on what you hope will arise from this discussion.

              Let's stay on topic, please. My motivation is not important here. I'm driven by the desire to seek for the truth. What about you? (rhetorical question) 🙂

              TwistedTwigleg We cannot effect a change here in any special way.

              This is a helpless position.

                            Xrayez My motivation is not important here.

                            Could that be because your entire motivation is that you're salty about being banned?

                                Xrayez Yes, not sure what you imply by that though, because neither me nor others represent Godot leadership in contrast.

                                I am just nothing there is nothing stopping anyone from making a company and it’s within their rights to do so - whether they are Godot leadership or not. Godot leadership (I.E people making decisions on what goes into Godot ultimately) may be somewhat influenced by this, especially if it’s their company, but that is something those in leadership positions have to decide, not us. We cannot say whether they are biased or not without knowing the discussions they have and why.

                                Xrayez This is not about development only. But given that there exist no controlling body over Godot leadership, everything is based on trust. And I'd like to repeat that I don't trust Godot leadership, that's one of the reasons why I don't even use Godot anymore.

                                Fair, and as I noted I do not always agree with them either. This seems like a chicken and the egg problem though: because won’t that controlling body be the same as Godot leadership, just different people? I digress though.

                                Xrayez Godot and talking about its governance, so I'm motivated by this as well, so other people can make an informed decision before picking Godot, something that I wasn't aware of several years ago when I first stumbled upon Godot.

                                I see. Thank you for clarifying. But…

                                Xrayez Let's stay on topic, please. My motivation is not important here. I'm driven by the desire to seek for the truth. What about you? (rhetorical question) 🙂

                                Seeking the “truth” sounds more investigative than just describing and trying to warn/inform others.

                                spacecloud Could that be because your entire motivation is that you're salty about being banned?

                                Let’s keep discussion constructive.

                                            🧌 Why doesn't this icon appear as a smiley?
                                            [troll]

                                            spacecloud sorry, i'll stay out of this thread now.

                                            Very prudent decision.

                                              Xrayez In the interest of full transparency (which Godot leadership declares to be a highly important aspect behind Godot as an Open Source project), I think it would be worth to research Godot's involvement with commercial companies around Godot ecosystem.

                                              Guys, the goal is exactly what I said in the OP. 😉

                                              I'm fairly confident to say that most people here were not aware of the mere existence of those commercial companies founded by Godot leadership (except for W4 Games, maybe), especially when they don't tell you this explicitly by hiding it behind a wall of newspeak (such as "We are Godot veterans"), instead of being direct about it to say that "We are Godot leaders". I'm not making this up, look up those websites and see for yourself. I invite you to talk factually. By the way, I wasn't aware of existence of those companies either, for years! And that's considering the fact that I contributed to Godot's development for 5 years straight...

                                              TwistedTwigleg Seeking the “truth” sounds more investigative than just describing and trying to warn/inform others.

                                              This is my general motivation that was built up due to my heavy interaction and involvement with Godot's core team in the past. In fact, I was part of the core team. But again, it's not really important what kind of method is used to discuss this (as long as we don't go ad hominem and have a constructive discussion), and I see absolutely no issue with investigation. Many systems have corrupted due to underestimation of their governance methods as exploited by leadership, and I have clear evidence of undue influence that Godot leadership has upon its contributors (which I don't reveal here for obvious reasons, as I said).

                                              Believe it or not, but you can directly influence the decision-making process by speaking out your concerns (something that Godot followers are either afraid to do, or choose to be voluntarily ignorant regarding this concrete aspect of Godot, which is governance), because success of Godot is totally dependent on their users, and not the other way! Don't be "loyal" to the system for the sake of it. Be loyal to yourself and trust yourself first and foremost. 🙂

                                                    Godot leadership launched "Godot Foundation", a Dutch non-profit organization:

                                                    Godot Foundation

                                                    From their website:

                                                    What do you think about this? Emilio is a creator of Dialogic.

                                                    I'd also like to draw analogy from Blender. They have Blender Foundation, but it's directly described on Blender's official website as part of the project. Why do you think that Godot finds it necessary to create an entire new website just for this? Why not present Godot Foundation directly via Godot's website, just like Blender does it?

                                                    Xrayez Guys, the goal is exactly what I said in the OP.

                                                    Please restate the goal more concisely, without a lot of rambling.

                                                        I think the crux of this is that there is an implication that commercial interest and open source development can't work together, and I think this is false. Open source (to me at least) is about freedom. Not that the app has no cost. I could easily afford to pay for Unity or Unreal, if I wanted, but I like the freedom of using open source tools. That won't restrict what you can do with the tools, or how you make your money. For example, some engines disallow gambling games, or adult content, which I feel is overly restrictive. Even if I was not, say, working on a gambling game, I would enjoy the ability to if I wanted and not have someone else dictate what I can and cannot do. In that respect, I think Godot is free (free as in beer, and free as in freedom). If the founders want to make money on the side, without negatively influencing the open source part of the project, then I think that is great. As I said before, some of the most successful FOSS projects have made a lot of money without compromising the project. So I don't see why Godot can't do that as well.

                                                          I have not read everything that was written in here but in general I think the topic is pretty simple. Just be thankful for everybody who decides on sharing their work as open source and helps grow a community of creative work opportunities for a lot of people.

                                                          Nobody who releases open source software also signs a contract for life to never earn money again. In a world where humans continue to need food, shelter and security, earning money for providing services in not evil or something to base distrust on. There is a big difference between earning money and hording bank for only personal enjoyments.

                                                          And as others have stated: some aspects of development need commercial ways to happen.

                                                          So just be thankful for what is given, instead of getting greedy and distrusting. I do not think that is what open source is about and what people who work in that way are trying to achieve.

                                                          Godot is a great tool and has a good community 🙂

                                                          Enjoy your day and stay creative!

                                                            cybereality I think the crux of this is that there is an implication that commercial interest and open source development can't work together, and I think this is false.

                                                            Again, major misunderstanding here, please pay attention, this is not my implication. The problem is exactly that: what Godot leadership says do not match their actions, which is a major problem in and of itself.

                                                            2DPIXX I have not read everything that was written in here

                                                            Well, if you were to read the entire thread, perhaps your opinion would change afterwards.

                                                            In general, you're right. But... What would you say about this: Godot received a $20k grant from Mozilla to improve Godot’s web platform/infrastructure. But then, Juan said he used Mozilla's grant to pay for his living expenses... Perhaps Juan must start making money for personal needs elsewhere, and not in Open Source? Don't you think it isn't fair that they spend donation money on such things, instead of distributing that money between contributors? Could you comment this injustice from within your worldview?

                                                            DaveTheCoder Please restate the goal more concisely, without a lot of rambling.

                                                            Research Godot's involvement with commercial companies. 🙂

                                                                    That is not at all abnormal for small to medium sized entities.