UE4 is a source-available, gratis game engine. This is fine. It is not open source, nor is it free or libre.
- not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations
- given or available without charge
So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes.
Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No.
Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?
Yes.
You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word.
People whining about this are being ridiculous.
Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license.
Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?
It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.
When you're talking about software, you should not blame others for assuming "free" refers to the FSF definition, especially in announcements targeted towards technically inclined audiences.
Why would you say that?
I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.
They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".
- "Open source"
- "Free"
- "Libre"
and again, as I see it, they all have mutually exclusive definitions. ie.
- the source is available to see and compile
- the project may be used without financial expense
- you may do with this project, and its source code, what you will (and personally I accept the restriction that you must preserve that right for others as not compromising this.)
under these definitions, I would now call the UE4 engine free and open source. I would not call it libre.
Do you object to any of these definitions?
In this context, all of them (well, maybe not "Libre", for which you have an approximation of the usual definition.) The common combination "Free/Libre/Open source Software" phrase comes from three different names for approximately the same thing in Software:
(1) Free Software under the FSF's Free Software definition [0]
(2) Open Source Software under the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition [1]
(3) "Libre", a term sometimes used parenthetically to distinguish Free Software in the Free Software sense as discussed above from free-of-charge (gratis) software.
OK, maybe it's better to call it "we're-not-gonna-be-a-dick-about-it" license.
Now if they had said "Unreal Engine is now available as free software" that would have been more confusing and misleading.
