undefined

points

[-]

I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was time for questions, a man from the audience asked what physics engine the game uses. Vesterbacka gives the correct answer, Box2D, to which the person replied with another question. "Why isn't it mentioned in the credits? And by the way, I'm Erin Catto, the creator of Box2D." To this Vesterbacka replied "Come talk to me after the show". Maybe that's when Erin was given the hoodie? Also, his name was soon added to the credits.

But one thing amazed us all. It was impressive that the marketing guy knew which physics engine was used!

by gregsadetsky1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

To the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie?

Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly.

I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't.

But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-)

[0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/02/28/angry-birds-2-reven...

by sosodev35 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair?

To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.

by nananana932 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Well there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.

by SiempreViernes9 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Since he eventually got the credit, your unfairness argument better build entirely on the damage the creator suffered by the delay of his credit.

by sosodev16 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

He got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.

by LeBit25 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

If I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.

by sosodev17 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

That’s a fine perspective, but the whole point of law is to guarantee outcomes. The license could easily say “if you make more than $500M, you must pay me $1M”. Why is that not an acceptable solution here?

by CooCooCaCha20 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.

by SiempreViernes6 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Sure, but contracts is the remedy society has developed to the problem that there are lots of indecent people around (not to mention that reasonable persons can disagree without being unreasonable).

by CooCooCaCha22 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general.

It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.

by SiempreViernes5 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

But if this expectation really were very common, what would be the harm of putting it in a licence?

by maccard9 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Box2d is open source. For better or for worse, Rovio are entitled to use it.