I'd like to remove the term "open source" from the description and replace it with some other term. It seems to me that the Genesis license does not meet the conditions of the Open Source Initiative Open Source Definition. There is an "Eclipse public license" that is apparently OSI-approved but it differs from the Genesis license in some significant ways. Thoughts about how to deal with this are requested. 184.108.40.206 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why Genesis3D should not meet these conditions. There are plenty of open source projects with a very similar license. I strongly suggest undoing your changes.
Current reigning 3D Engine?
The article states that this was a competitor for the "current reigning 3D Engine known as the "Doom" engine". But if this was released in 98, then the Doom engine was outdated and not reigning. The reigning engines at the time were probably the Build engine and Quake's engine. DoppElgangEr 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- True. I reworded that sentence a bit. One point is that the source code of the Doom engine was released at the time, but only for non-commercial use. In 1998, Genesis 3D was the only 3D engine (or at least the only professional-quality 3D engine) that could be used in a commercial project without paying royalties, so in a way it had no competitors at all. — Graf Bobby 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)