Please accept my sincere apology. And no offence intended.
Let hope we continue to focus and amaze at the technical marvel that is UE5.
You can see it so that part is shared but if you try to use it you fall under a very different licease. If you try to modify and sell you can't. Modify and use you must pay. Use you must pay.
Bait open source might be a better term.
The answer is that pretty much everyone agreed that open source means something roughly equivalent to the OSI definition, and even big companies agreed with that... until a year ago or so when somebody decided that they wanted all the benefits of claiming to contribute to open source without actually doing so, and a bunch of people who never actually cared about the FOSS ecosystem aided them in doing so.
guess it helps the discussion and to defend agains marketing-speak appropriation to have a single uniform definition. but it's confusing as heck if someone is unknowing or resisting the OSI coup to position themselves as the open source regent.
I don't see why continuing to argue it makes any sense here. All this type of behavior does is drive people away from further discussions on sites like this, reddit, etc.
There won't be single uniform definition.
"Open source" isn't based on the semantic that the source code is public, its definition comes exclusively from a set of guidelines that limit the rights of the original creator to enforce a specific range of IP protections guaranteed to them by domestic and international laws. There are various types of public licenses, also known as GNU, that are considered "true open source" in that the original creator can only enforce some provisions like a source attribution credit in a modified distribution. And there are permission licenses, like the MIT License, which don't necessarily meet every guideline for FOSS, but do meet most of them.
When it comes to IP, the only basis that matters is legal, as its the only basis that's universally enforceable. Laypersons can define "open source" however they please, but when engineers, devs, business, and legal discuss it, it has one definition, and that definition is well-established as exemptions from current IP law.
Unreal Engine's old business model were exactly that, get you excited with demos and sign up ( paid ) for their engine. And it was the same with UE 3 and UE 4. But in 2015 all that changed. It was open sourced on Github, it has a very sustainable revenue model due to the explosion of Mobile Gaming, the Gaming industry as a whole is now bigger than Movies and Music industry combined.
I think it is fair to say EPYC no longer has the incentive to do that with UE 5. And because it is / will be open source, they can now actively work with many different partners ( Hardware such as Sony and Microsoft and other publishers ) to make sure those technology works as intended.