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.

                                      Godot Foundation states that they are going to provide financial statements/reports in a distant 2024:

                                      If Godot Foundation already claims to receive donations, is it so difficult to provide financial reports right from the start?

                                      I'm also curious how long it will take Godot to move away from Software Freedom Conservancy to their new Godot Foundation? A year? Two? For your information, Godot currently receives funds both from SFC's Patreon and Godot Foundation receives funds via PayPal, as well as bank transfer. If they are moving away from SFC, what do you think: is Godot going to retain its Patreon or move to a different model?

                                      Given that Godot is declared to be a truly community-driven project, I also wondered why wouldn't Godot adopt transparency practices as we see in Open Collective, for instance, just like a lot of community-driven projects do. See for instance popular Webpack, as well as their wonderful voting system: https://webpack.js.org/vote/

                                      Godot is 9 years old since it got open-sourced, and we see don't see this kind of transparency in Godot as in other Open Source projects.

                                      Waiting for Godot financial reports... 😁

                                      Xrayez Research Godot's involvement with commercial companies.

                                      That's not a goal. Research can only serve a goal if there's a purpose for it.

                                      From your comments, the only goal I can discern is that you're trying to destroy the project.

                                          DaveTheCoder From your comments, the only goal I can discern is that you're trying to destroy the project.

                                          Then you obviously don't assume positive intentions behind this thread, especially when you act as a gatekeeper here, which clearly goes against Godot's Code of Conduct.

                                              TwistedTwigleg 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.

                                              By the way, I forgot to add: the same thing can be said about Unity's decision to partner with ironSource. If you apply the same logic, the entire drama with ironSource could also be described as "speculation", as you put it, notwithstanding ironSource's history as a company.

                                              You may say that what happened to Unity is just a straw that broke camel's back. In a much similar way, I treat Godot's recent hypocritical decisions concerning commercial pursuits as this final straw. Again, the problem is not with the fact that Godot has spawned numerous commercial companies around it. But in contrast to Godot, other Open Source projects are utmost honest with this, in my experience contributing to Godot's development myself and talking to leadership.

                                              Corruption, just like illness, must be prevented. And by talking about it, Godot community can prevent it.

                                              If my aim was to destroy Godot (as someone put it in this thread), I would simply choose not to talk about it. 😁

                                                DaveTheCoder From your comments, the only goal I can discern is that you're trying to destroy the project.

                                                Yes, that's generally the purpose of cancel culture.

                                                Also says you shouldn't be here.

                                                Any form of retaliation against a participant who contacts the Code of Conduct team is completely unacceptable, regardless of the outcome of the complaint. Any such behavior will result in exclusion from the community.

                                                Since your immediate reaction to being banned for violating the code of conduct was the link above.

                                                      spacecloud your quote from CoC is out of place. Perhaps you wanted to quote something else? Try again. In fact, what you quoted can be applied to your behavior here.

                                                      What you attempted to do right from the beginning of this thread is a form of ad hominem, which is destructive to this discussion (simple definition from Wikipedia):

                                                      Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive [emphasis added], or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

                                                      This also goes against Godot Forums rules, [emphasis added]:

                                                      Be mindful of your words and links. Do not post offensive or inappropriate material. Anything that may offend a person's creed, morality, religion, age (children also access this forum!), personal identity, etc. Be respectful when posting. Bulling and discrimination will NOT be tolerated.

                                                      My personal attitude to actions of Godot leadership in the past has nothing to do with this thread.

                                                      Having said that, unfortunately, I come to a conclusion that this discussion is unconstructive. I'm not interested in an unconstructive discussion, please stay on-topic.

                                                          Xrayez What you attempted to do right from the beginning of this thread is a form of ad hominem, which is destructive to this discussion:

                                                          What you're doing now is gaslighting.

                                                          And you still haven't provided a reason for this discussion.