Or should I study this engine at all?
If you’d rather have it rotten and laminated, go for UrhoSharp.
He’s making a joke because Urho is a fish. Well, what language are you going to use?
i only know some c++, so ima stick with it.
By the way, I have noticed that your fork violates Urho license (which is amusing because one has to try hard to violate MIT license).
You have technically removed Urho copyrights from source code, which is forbidden by that removed copyright.
It depends on your goal.
If you want to do stuff with C++, you are satisfied with current Urho features and you are okay with the fact that Urho will not get any feature updates in foreseeable future, just use Urho. It’s good enough for its own class of applications.
If you still want to do stuff with C++ but feel brave and want a couple of new features, check out rbfx.
I don’t know any other feature-oriented fork, correct me if I am wrong.
If you are not really tied to C++ and want to make games as easy as possible, just go learn mainstream engines.
The project changed direction, no license is violated.
Only “Urho 3D project” was replaced with “LucKey Productions”, both amorphous nonlegal entities.
Is it illegal to bump the year as well?
i dont have enough resource to make something in urho3d
so for now i just wanna learn the engine design… that sort of things
Feel free to discuss or ask about any facet of game development aboard the colourship.
Users have contributed to the project with a specific copyright.
In this case, Urho is quite good base point. It may be outdated in some aspects, but core idea and subsystem design is quite good, so it may be beneficial to learn from it.
Just don’t dig too deep into implementation.
Also, consider reading actual books about game engine design.
You can add your own copyright below original one. You can use your own copyright in new files. You can not alter original copyright. You can update year in original copyright if you chose to attribute your changes to that copyright holder (Urho3D project). If you would like to maintain copyright of your own changes - add a new copyright under original one and leave original copyright completely intact.
Technically, yes it is. You can pump additional licenses ontop of files but you can’t touch the existing text without authority to do so in most regions.
Obviously some regions like the USA don’t care and flout their “state” laws, while the EU will slam you into prison fairly quickly. In most of Africa, or Vietnam, Korea, and Cambodia they just kill you and it’s done.
The entire African continent in particular has been going super hard on sanctions and extraditions after the whole Facebook mess with the SUNCG dataset being bootleg data. Worst possible time for that shit to hit mainstream.
With whom does this authority lie, in this case?
To me it was part of rebranding.
That code is not yours to “rebrand” like that. You essentially claimed ownership which is explicitly forbidden by the license. Read it some time. I find it odd that such benevolent person with purse soul like you has trouble abiding by one of the simplest and most straightforward licenses out there. You essentially disrespected all the hard work all contributors put in by claiming it as your own.
Closed as it went so much off topic.