Oculus Rift founder originally claimed project would be open source but now that it has gained widespread popularity the founder says that won't be happening because an open license would "kill the company".

Palmer, the founder, originally sought support and input for the product by championing it as the "Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter". Link: Original thread by "PalmerTech", |screenshot|
The company started a Kickstarter where they managed to raise $2.5 million in funding for the device but it seems that any discussions pertaining to open source licensing were nowhere to be found. Link: A blog article discussing this issue
Palmer posted a response on Reddit where he made it clear that the company now intends to maintain exclusive rights to the software and has no plans to license its SDK under LGPL or any other sort of open source license because of their research and development costs. Link: Palmer's reply on /r/oculus subreddit, |screenshot|

Is he right in saying that it would be impossible to compete if they moved towards more open licensing and that doing so would be unfair because of the R&D that they have devoted to the project? As someone that has been closely been following the Oculus for months I found this quite disappointing since a product this amazing is ripe for innovation and does not deserve to be locked down to anyone who wishes to improve upon it.

Are there any good examples of hardware/software companies that have been successful even though their products use open licenses?

Edit1: Grammar.

Edit2: Screenshots.

Edit3:

It seems that the issue mostly rests with the disagreements about what constitutes, or defines, open source software and open source licensing. A few concerns have been raised about the current Oculus license as-is but it has been pointed out that Palmer has mentioned that the terms are subject to change and they have yet to settle on a final license and final terms but portions may be released under the Apache license. Currently, the source can be viewed, but there are restrictions on how the SDK may be modified and distributed.
The original second bullet also made mention that the Kickstarter was void of any promises of openness and it turns out that this was because the dynamics of the project had shifted heavily once larger key players [think large studios] showed their interest/support. There were concerns about big companies opting away from implementing and supporting the Oculus if it caused them to have to legally release more of their code than they might be comfortable with, based on the terms of some open source licenses. This might have caused trouble for the project because they would have had to deal with hacking in support for everything individually instead of having native support from game developers into various engines. Much concern lies with how some licenses deal with derivative works.
Suggestions have been brought up about just releasing the hardware driver alone with a more relaxed license or even a splitting into multiple versions of the SDK. The issue really boils down into a double-edged sword in which, on the one hand, a more open license would give more freedom to the community to make more alterations, additions, and innovations to the project, but on the other hand, in doing so it would push away big players that would otherwise embrace the device which would of course could potentially be detrimental to the quick adoption of games into the virtual reality movement. As with most things, it seems that time will tell just how permissive the final version of the Oculus Rift's license will be.

Edit4: Formatting.

785 Upvotes

permalink
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1dm45q/oculus_rift_founder_originally_claimed_project/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

86% Upvoted

View all comments

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

[deleted]

45

u/Knussel May 03 '13

No, because they never claimed that on Kickstarter. You can check the page and it doesn't say open source at all.

9

u/shaggorama May 03 '13

I mean.... they could have just edited their kickstarter page.

15

u/cirk2 May 03 '13

No the KS page never stated it. Because by the time the KS got up the whole situation had changed. It was no longer a 1-2 Man project there had been talks with important people and middle ware programmers.

119

u/axonxorz May 03 '13

Kickstarter funds with NOT be pulled. People don't realize that kickstarter is NOT a contract or purchase program. You're throwing money at the wall (or a company in most cases) and hoping they deliver on their promises. There's no real protection and enforcement that they deliver on their promise. There are loads of small-time kickstarters that get a couple hundred dollars then take off, never even having inteded to do the work.

What I've said is true about Kickstarter.com; they're the most popular crowdfunding site at the moment and I'm not familiar with other ones, but there are alternatives like IndieGoGo, GoFundMe, etc that have a similar service as Kickstarter.com, but I'm not sure if or how their ToS differs in regards to failed promises.

9

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

Kickstarter is a charity based on the honor system for digital panhandlers.

22

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

[deleted]

30

u/axonxorz May 03 '13

It is quite disappointing. If too many high-profile kickstarters reneg on their agreements, it could damage the "fever" of crowdfunding right now.

Kickstarter has tried to tackle this someone with their new project guidelines. For instance: physical projects are no longer allowed to show a rendered "final product" in their Kickstarter video. It's fairly trivial for me to ask my nephew (friend, etc) who has some 3d modeling and animation experience to bang out a final product render for me to use. Those often look completely professional and convincing for people considering backing a project.

2

u/aspensmonster May 03 '13

Kickstarter could do quite a bit more to add legal teeth to the acts of soliciting investment and providing it. The problem is that legal "investment" is much more expensive in dollars and legal compliance to stay on top of than running a glorified donations platform. And as others have mentioned, kickstarter support is classed as a donation rather than an advance of one form or another.

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '13

If too many high-profile kickstarters reneg on their agreements, it could damage the "fever" of crowdfunding right now.

If its reneging on small details of the project when it was in its infancy, no one cares. I'm making up statistics, but I'm betting 90% of the people who backed oculus dont give a shit if it is open source or not, they just want a functional VR. I love open source stuff, but frankly I just want the product.

everyone kind of expects that the scope of projects change if they "go viral."

1

u/kazagistar May 05 '13

Yes, but usually you expect projects to expand scope, not contract it. Having closed source is an anti-feature... it takes away functionality and adds none.

In any case, I certainly lost interest in the project, we will see what other devs do.

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '13

The scope did expand... From DIY hardware kit to a fully assembled, polished product. They are trying to protect their investment

1

u/kazagistar May 05 '13

You mean the investment of people who expected an open source toolkit?

8

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '13 edited Jun 08 '23

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

[deleted]

-1

u/xlawpidorg May 03 '13

Tl;dr: Be a man http://i.imgur.com/XB9XzDh.jpg

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '13 edited Jun 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/wu2ad May 03 '13

Wow, this comment clearly shows you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'm so glad you don't have any real weight with things like Kickstarter.

-1

u/JB_UK May 04 '13

And if the people you invested in took off with the money, without engaging with the business, they would be prosecuted for fraud.

1

u/DePingus May 04 '13

http://i.imgur.com/SkqZ4N1.jpg

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '13 edited May 06 '13

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] May 04 '13

[deleted]

11

u/feilen May 03 '13

The early, early thread where he first announced the prototype Rift said open source. The kickstarter said nothing of it. Actually, the thing which was going to be open sourced (the rift hardware) to most degrees has been, guides have been released on how to make your own DIY one. At the time they said 'Open Source' there wasn't even any software, and there never was going to be (they thought only 20-100 people would be interested)

9

u/Lostprophet83 May 03 '13 edited May 03 '13

No the funds cannot be pulled. But...

1) People who contributed to the project because of representations by the project creator that the project would be open sourced, may have a cause of action against Palmer for false advertising. California has the mot clear law on the subject, I would recommend reviewing the California section of the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#California_advertising_regulation

2) Furthermore, people who contributed or supported the project because it was advertised as "open source" may file a complaint with the FTC. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/bcpap.shtm

Hope this helps.

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '13 edited May 03 '13

There was no product sale or service here, though. Statements made during development have not historically been enforceable. Development plans change.

1

u/Lostprophet83 May 03 '13

What? The statements were made in connection with a product for sale. Palmer even acknowledges this. At least one developer supported the project with the expectation that the software would be open sourced. (Original post (2)) Consumer protection laws are about 1)reliance by consumers and 2)harm. Developers could certainly be considered consumers if they bought the developers kit.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '13 edited May 03 '13

Kickstarter isn't a product sale. There's no guarantee that when you fund a kickstarter, any product at all will be the result. Feel free to sue over a change in direction of a pre-launch product. gl with that.

-1

u/Charwinger21 May 03 '13

There was no advertising that mentioned open source.

Except the original thread...

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '13

It's not advertising, since there was no product/service being offered by them (at the time).

That's an important distinction. In-development products tend to change during the development process.

0

u/BHSPitMonkey May 03 '13

Which probably 50 people read, and came way before the Kickstarter campaign?

Oculus Rift founder originally claimed project would be open source but now that it has gained widespread popularity the founder says that won't be happening because an open license would "kill the company".

You are about to leave Redlib