I read Sweeny’s post and I don’t understand why clause is in place. project will bring more developers to work in unreal while putting the maintenance responsibility on particular . The developers are taking a risk by going with them. If their solution blows up and gets massively adopted is because they clearly provided a better developer experience than Epic could ever provide even if is at the cost of less quality/reliability in the code made. The reality is that Unity wins over developers in big part because it allows them to fail, to write bad code while at the same working on producing solutions that work for the enterprise and that provide quality. Failure is part of learning. Some people sometimes have to code it quickly and wrong to understand why they need to plan out your code better and use a different API like the C++ APIs in Unreal. Forcing people to do things the right way does not in any help developer growth if the motivation is not there. Failure creates motivation. Unity is an example of . You see the path of many unity developers and their commitment comes from their failures, that’s when they seek education and begin to succeed. approach that you have to do things the right way, the documented way to succeed doesn’t work.
Allow developers to go with these maybe paid options like Code Orchestra fail in them, fail to find good documentation, fail to understand the engine properly so they can then find their way to the C++ API and the full engine source motivated by the desire to overcome their previous failure.
Good education systems allow failure. By forcing any efforts like Code Orchestra to be open source you are not giving an opportunity for failure as there is no incentive for these Code Orchestra developers to even try.