Havok Releases Free Version For PC Developers

An anonymous reader writes "Havok has released the free version of its widely-used physics and animation engine (but without source code), including tools that integrate with Autodesk 3ds Max and Maya. Developers may use Havok for free for non-commercial games, middleware, and academic projects. Here are the SDK and tools."

Don't complain

[Enderandrew (866215)]

Havok wasn't obligated to do this. It is a kind (and perhaps savvy) gesture. I can't wait to see all the open-source Linux shooters integrate Havok. How long before it is in Ogre 3D and common engines like that?

I think it might be savvy, that if physics become common even in free games, that consumers won't want to pay for a commercial game unless it features physics as well.

I recall a while back someone was trying to create a homebrew engine that would play Jedi Knight levels, and it was a fairly impressive engine, except they couldn't finish it because they couldn't find a coder who could integrate even basic physics stuff. People looked and looked on all the usual sites, but it seems not many people know that stuff.

Re:

[Rycross (836649)]

As others have pointed out, its going to be hard to integrate this with other FOSS libraries. Even though Ogre is LPGL and not GPL, I don't think its possible. But we do have ODE (Open Dynamics Engine) to work with. It'd be interesting to see how Havok compares to ODE.

How does it compare

[PhrostyMcByte (589271)]

What I want to know is: how does it compare to the existing Open Source physics libraries, such as Bullet [bulletphysics.com] (which was made by an ex-Havok developer)?

Re:

[Enderandrew (866215)]

Not everything OSS is GPL. And I don't want to start a GPL-flame-fest here, but this is another example of GPL restricts as much as it protects freedom.

Re:Don't complain

[Rycross (836649)]

True, I think you could integrate this with BSD code. How many game libraries are available in BSD though? I think most of them tend to be GPL or LGPL. Ogre is LGPL as is Crystal Space. OpenTNL (game networking) has both LGPL and commercial licenses.

Of course, you could probably integrate this with a slew of commercial engines.

I'd say GPL restricts certain freedoms for the sake of others that are, in the opinion of the FSF, more important. Not a big deal from my perspective.

Re:Don't complain

[Toonol (1057698)]

How is it possible to write GPL code for windows, then? All windows software links to proprietary win32 libraries.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Correct. However, there is a clause (at least in GPLv2, and a similar clause should exist in GPLv3) that states:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

In other words, it's fine to create GPL software that links with standard Windows li

Re:Don't complain

[nhaines (622289)]

The point of the GPL is to produce software which is freely redistributable. But if you integrate non-Free software, then you lose the rights that the GPL is meant to protect. You can no longer share the entire project. You can no longer examine the way the entire project works. You can no longer sell the project. You can no longer fix and support the project.

If you do not want to grant others the freedom to your software that the GPL offers, then you should not license your code under the GPL and instead you should pick a more appropriate license.

The problem is more the Havok license than the GPL

[JSBiff (87824)]

The thing is, the Havok free license requires you to distribute your whole software package as binary only. That's incredibly un-friendly to Open Source. Sure, there could potentially be an open source license which doesn't require shared libraries you link to be open source as well (actually, in reading the GPL, I think you could make the case that you could even distribute your software under the GPL if it links to proprietary libraries, because in as much as those libraries are not really part of your pr

Ok, I'll bite:

[JSBiff (87824)]

I don't know that the GPL expressely forbids linking to non-GPL libraries. However, there is definitely a license conflict between Havok and the GPL. . .

From the Havok license:

"i. publicly demonstrate, and publicly distribute a Havok-enabled non-commercial end-user compiled, binary executable software application or game for the Windows PC Platform, in which the Software is compiled and distributed within the software application or game in an integral, non-separable way, for no direct or indirect commercia

Re:

[chromatic (9471)]

There's absolutely no way you can simultaneously abide by the terms of both the Havok license and the GPL.

From the GPL side, you can -- but you cannot distribute the resulting work.

I don't know that the GPL expressely forbids linking to non-GPL libraries.

It doesn't. The GPL only governs redistribution.

Re:

[p0tat03 (985078)]

Warning: It's been a few months since I've touched physics engines... so maybe things have changed somewhat since then.

ODE's solver is horrendously slow compared to commercial physics packages. The plus side is that it has a more physically accurate solver... which unfortunately most games simply do not need. ODE is geared towards physical SIMULATIONS, whereas Novodex/PhysX and Havok are built more towards *looking* physically correct, as opposed to being *actually* correct. The difference is in the scale

Better late than never

[simonloach (974712)]

Although, when they said May I didn't think they would release it with only an hour to spare..

why not GPL it?

[RiotingPacifist (1228016)]

Given that no closed source game is going to GPL themselves instead of pay for a license why didnt they just GPL the thing and let open source games benefit? I'm no Stalmanist but in this case there is no down-side to GPLing it only extra geek credit.

Re:

[Haeleth (414428)]

They don't want anyone to profit from the free version.

It would be entirely possible for someone to use a hypothetical GPL version to make a commercial game; they would have to distribute the full source code to the game engine, of course, but the artwork, soundtrack, gameplay, etc could all remain non-free, so the game as a whole would be commercially viable.

Of course, it's true that only a tiny minority of commercial developers would be interested in that kind of business model, so maybe the open-source g

Re:

[TomorrowPlusX (571956)]

Because there is an absolutely unfathomable amount of brilliant mathematics running behind the scenes. The kind of stuff that competitor physics engine authors would love to pore over.

Even if they can't use that work, they can certainly learn some of the tricks that Havok uses.

Now, if what you want is open source physics, check out ODE ( http:://ode.org [http] ) and bullet ( http://www.bulletphysics.com/ [bulletphysics.com] ) both are fully open source, both are well documented, and both are quite good, but aim at different usages.

OD

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

You mean "free as in crack cocaine - the first hit is on the house".

Still, it's a valid way to get developers interested in using your tools. Not everything in life is free, and they have the right to do this, same as other softwae companies did in the past (eg: Borland with Kylix licensing).

Re:

[.orvp (208389)]

Havok is indeed being released as 'free' under certain circumstances. Yes, it is 'gratis' but 'gratis' is indeed 'free', just not 'Free'. Throughout the blurb, the software is referred to as 'free', not 'Free', it is only capitalized in the Headline, as per standard Title Conventions (although, I think 'for' should be lower case).

Just because the FSF doesn't consider it to be 'free' does not mean that it is not. To the average user, consumer, and non GNU evangelist, this release is indeed 'free', as there i

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

who spoke about FSF? It's a piece (or collection) of software. We are on Slashdot, a forum (supposedly) for geeks. The adjective free in this context has a more specific meaning.

Re:

[c_forq (924234)]

I beg to differ. Slashdot is very familiar with free as in beer. Unless an article is specifically about the GNU, FSF, or Stallman I think it is safe to assume the average slashdotter will interpret free as in beer, and Free as in freedom.

Re:

[Kalriath (849904)]

Yes, free [reference.com] (AND gratis - which only has one definition).

Stop trying to redefine English you frigging Nazis. Free means whatever every English dictionary in the world says it means.

Re:cool

[tomhudson (43916)]

gonna render a babe for this saturday night!

Why not go to Soviet Russia, where babe renders YOU!

Re:Strike one!

[johannesg (664142)]

It does not support Visual Studio 6. Only 2003 and 2005. Boo!

Fixed that for you...

Re:

[johannesg (664142)]

I use that ten years old IDE because it is more pleasant to work with than the more recent versions.

Something really simple that *really* annoys the hell out of me in any later version: in VS6, you can cancel the message window (i.e. make it disappear) by hitting escape. In later versions, you cannot.

In VS6 you can create keyboard macro's and bind them to any key you want. I've been looking for this option in later versions and could not find it.

In VS6, DevStudio was first and foremost a C++ environment wit

Re:

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

Ok, so you really hate the newer VS versions. I still think it's unreasonable to expect that companies like Havok spend time making their SDKs compatible with VS 6 when even Microsoft doesn't support it.

Oh, and those "free" versions of yours? They aren't free for corporate use...

Actually, they are: [microsoft.com]

7. Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?

Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.