• madsen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the source code download is automatically added by GitHub when you create a release in a project, and I don’t know that there’s any way to remove it. So I don’t think the “source code” download is necessarily intentionally misleading, but apart from that, yeah, you’re absolutely right. It is a bit of a shitty way to use GitHub.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So I don’t think the “source code” download is necessarily intentionally misleading

        The source code archives weren’t explicitly placed by that person but everyone who ever used Github knows exactly that this happens. Even a quick glance at the URL suggests it’s an open source implementation of the engine.

    • drspod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was my exact reaction too, but then I remembered that the source that this source-port is based on was not officially released. It was leaked a little while back (last year?), so that means if the authors of this source port make the source available then they could be liable for a DMCA takedown request or a copyright lawsuit.

      They could make their changes available as a patch-set though, requiring end-users to locate a copy of the leaked source themselves and apply the patches.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        this source-port is based on was not officially released. It was leaked a little while back (last year?), so that means if the authors of this source port make the source available then they could be liable for a DMCA takedown request or a copyright lawsuit.

        That’s in no way different with a binary-only release and also not a good reason to mislead people on top of that.